Iman
Check out this posting. It's a forward of an older posting on the mailing
list. I had asked the same question many months ago. To the best of my
knowledge no progress has been made on providing backhand in Apache 2.0.
The only thing I would add to this message is, if / when this work is done
in Apache 2.0 it should also make the mod backhand directives "controllable"
with mod_rewrite. With the new design of Apache this may be a built in /
freebie (Apache chains). If not, it should definetely be an added
capability. This would provide extreme flexibility.
Later
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Butler" <rob_butler@hotmail.com>
To: <backhand-users@lists.backhand.org>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [m_b_users] Apache 2
>
>
> Sounds very cool Theo, so when will it be ready? Next week? nah, take
your
> time we'll expect a beta in 10 days, stable release in 14 days.
>
> he he he ;)
>
> Rob
> >On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 03:29 AM, Albrecht Marcus wrote:
> >>I the backhand module working with the new apache 2 versions?
> >
> >That's a negative. There has been no work done to port mod_bachkhand to
> >Apache 2.0. I talked with Chuck Murko a bit at the last ApacheCon and
> >the preliminary architecture of mod_proxy looks like it will be more
> >than capable of handling the plumbing required by mod_backhand. So, I
> >think mod_backhand will provide the same features in 2.0, but be
> >implemented very differently.
> >
> >The first thing that should happen is that the resource collector should
> >be separated into a standalone process. Apache will "register" with the
> >process. This will allow other facilities on the machine to use the
> >same shared resource information (like Linux Virtual Server).
> >
> >Then it would simply require building a module that processes candidacy
> >functions and coerces mod_proxy's destination for reverse_proxying.
> >
> >It may or may not be a patch to mod_proxy. Hopefully, we will just see
> >where we need to add hooks to mod_proxy, add them and then code
> >mod_backhand up separately to piggy back on the hard work of the
> >mod_proxy team. That way it will be protocol independent! (as mod_proxy
> >will be).
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> backhand-users mailing list
> backhand-users@lists.backhand.org
> http://lists.backhand.org/mailman/listinfo/backhand-users
Check out this posting. It's a forward of an older posting on the mailing
list. I had asked the same question many months ago. To the best of my
knowledge no progress has been made on providing backhand in Apache 2.0.
The only thing I would add to this message is, if / when this work is done
in Apache 2.0 it should also make the mod backhand directives "controllable"
with mod_rewrite. With the new design of Apache this may be a built in /
freebie (Apache chains). If not, it should definetely be an added
capability. This would provide extreme flexibility.
Later
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Butler" <rob_butler@hotmail.com>
To: <backhand-users@lists.backhand.org>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [m_b_users] Apache 2
>
>
> Sounds very cool Theo, so when will it be ready? Next week? nah, take
your
> time we'll expect a beta in 10 days, stable release in 14 days.
>
> he he he ;)
>
> Rob
> >On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 03:29 AM, Albrecht Marcus wrote:
> >>I the backhand module working with the new apache 2 versions?
> >
> >That's a negative. There has been no work done to port mod_bachkhand to
> >Apache 2.0. I talked with Chuck Murko a bit at the last ApacheCon and
> >the preliminary architecture of mod_proxy looks like it will be more
> >than capable of handling the plumbing required by mod_backhand. So, I
> >think mod_backhand will provide the same features in 2.0, but be
> >implemented very differently.
> >
> >The first thing that should happen is that the resource collector should
> >be separated into a standalone process. Apache will "register" with the
> >process. This will allow other facilities on the machine to use the
> >same shared resource information (like Linux Virtual Server).
> >
> >Then it would simply require building a module that processes candidacy
> >functions and coerces mod_proxy's destination for reverse_proxying.
> >
> >It may or may not be a patch to mod_proxy. Hopefully, we will just see
> >where we need to add hooks to mod_proxy, add them and then code
> >mod_backhand up separately to piggy back on the hard work of the
> >mod_proxy team. That way it will be protocol independent! (as mod_proxy
> >will be).
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> backhand-users mailing list
> backhand-users@lists.backhand.org
> http://lists.backhand.org/mailman/listinfo/backhand-users