<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Running a Reverse Proxy in Apache</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.askapache.com/htaccess/reverse-proxy-apache.html/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.askapache.com/htaccess/reverse-proxy-apache.html</link>
	<description>Web Development</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 05:47:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.askapache.com/htaccess/reverse-proxy-apache.html#comment-25529</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:12:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askapache.com.com/htaccess/56.html#comment-25529</guid>
		<description>Could you possibly post the &#34;simplified&#34; example that you mentioned if vhosts were used?

We use virtual hosts extensively, and I'm curious as to how this would be simplified...

Thanks, this is a great read!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could you possibly post the &quot;simplified&quot; example that you mentioned if vhosts were used?</p>
<p>We use virtual hosts extensively, and I&#8217;m curious as to how this would be simplified&#8230;</p>
<p>Thanks, this is a great read!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Des</title>
		<link>http://www.askapache.com/htaccess/reverse-proxy-apache.html#comment-16492</link>
		<dc:creator>Des</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:12:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askapache.com.com/htaccess/56.html#comment-16492</guid>
		<description>If backend server returns 302 redirect response can this be "trapped" by proxy and redirected internally without sending response back to client?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If backend server returns 302 redirect response can this be &#8220;trapped&#8221; by proxy and redirected internally without sending response back to client?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dumbo</title>
		<link>http://www.askapache.com/htaccess/reverse-proxy-apache.html#comment-8030</link>
		<dc:creator>dumbo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askapache.com.com/htaccess/56.html#comment-8030</guid>
		<description>Hi,
I have slightly different scenario then the reverse proxy examples given.i have to redirect the incoming requests (http:/)to secured site (https://) and get the data back.
Also there is user authentication.
how can that be acompished in reverse proxy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,<br />
I have slightly different scenario then the reverse proxy examples given.i have to redirect the incoming requests (http:/)to secured site (https://) and get the data back.<br />
Also there is user authentication.<br />
how can that be acompished in reverse proxy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cd-MaN</title>
		<link>http://www.askapache.com/htaccess/reverse-proxy-apache.html#comment-223</link>
		<dc:creator>Cd-MaN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:51:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askapache.com.com/htaccess/56.html#comment-223</guid>
		<description>Hello. I have an issue with mod_proxy I blogged about (http://hype-free.blogspot.com/2006/09/apache-and-modproxy.html). Basically the scenario is the following:
-one internal server with CentOS running an old(er) version of Apache (some 2.0.x) with mod proxy
-the target server out on the web with Windows and a new Apache 2.2
-connections from the proxy to the target server are made through SSL for security reasons
-if keep-alive connections are enabled at every 2-3 requests the proxy says something similar to: "I received an invalid response from an upstream server". With keep-alive connections disabled everything works fine, but the performance penalty is big, because the encryption has to be renegotiated for every query. Any ideas what could be the problem? I tried to google it by came up with no useful info.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello. I have an issue with mod_proxy I blogged about (http://hype-free.blogspot.com/2006/09/apache-and-modproxy.html). Basically the scenario is the following:<br />
-one internal server with CentOS running an old(er) version of Apache (some 2.0.x) with mod proxy<br />
-the target server out on the web with Windows and a new Apache 2.2<br />
-connections from the proxy to the target server are made through SSL for security reasons<br />
-if keep-alive connections are enabled at every 2-3 requests the proxy says something similar to: &#8220;I received an invalid response from an upstream server&#8221;. With keep-alive connections disabled everything works fine, but the performance penalty is big, because the encryption has to be renegotiated for every query. Any ideas what could be the problem? I tried to google it by came up with no useful info.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LonerVamp</title>
		<link>http://www.askapache.com/htaccess/reverse-proxy-apache.html#comment-161</link>
		<dc:creator>LonerVamp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:14:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askapache.com.com/htaccess/56.html#comment-161</guid>
		<description>This is just FYI. The article says:

"At the time of writing, the reason most commonly cited for not upgrading is difficulties running PHP on Apache 2. I cannot speak from personal experience, but several well-informed sources tell me the difficulty lies with non-thread-safe code in PHP, and that it works well with Apache 2 if it is built with the non-threaded Prefork MPM."

This was true in Ocftober 2006 when this was updated, but is no longer the issue with the latest Apache and PHP installs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is just FYI. The article says:</p>
<p>&#8220;At the time of writing, the reason most commonly cited for not upgrading is difficulties running PHP on Apache 2. I cannot speak from personal experience, but several well-informed sources tell me the difficulty lies with non-thread-safe code in PHP, and that it works well with Apache 2 if it is built with the non-threaded Prefork MPM.&#8221;</p>
<p>This was true in Ocftober 2006 when this was updated, but is no longer the issue with the latest Apache and PHP installs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
