On Tue, 14 May 2002, Bernd Koecke wrote: > The '0' as lb_value is needed to determine which are the main/local-workers. If > we don't have this special value we need an additional config-flag with a list > of the local/main-workers like in Mathias patch. > > Should I add an additional config-flag (I will take it from Mathias patch) or do > we stay with the special '0' value?
I think it would be a good idea, it'll make things cleaner. 'local_worker' would be allways selected, and if 'main_worker_mode' ( or maybe 'hw_lb_mode' ) no fallback will happen. > The 'main_worker_mode' is not the same like the 'in_main_worker_mode' var in > lb_worker struct. If 'main_worker_mode' flag is set to 'reject' in the > workers.properties the reject var of lb_worker struct is set to JK_TRUE. The > 'in_main_worker_mode' var of lb_worker struct is set to JK_TRUE if there is in > minimum one worker with '0' as lb_value. That's a bit confusing. Maybe some better variable names are needed. 2 flags should be enough - 'local_worker' and 'local_worker_only' ( or something that makes it clear that if the flag is set, no fallback will occur but an error is returned for the hw balancer ). I'll implement the same thing in jk2, but I wait your patch for jk1. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
