Subject: Re: JK Todo List
So is JK2 dead because of proxy_ajp? Why doesn't JK2 just replace JK?
JK2 is dead because (like mod_webapp before it :), it failed to attract a
community interested in maintaining it. You might as well ask 'why doesn't
mod_webapp just replace JK?'
Dave
:
- Original Message -
From: Dave Oxley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: JK Todo List
So is JK2 dead because of proxy_ajp? Why doesn't JK2 just replace JK?
JK2 is dead because (like mod_webapp before it :), it failed
Well JK using APR will be a good solution for every webservers but Apache 1.3.x.
Apache 2.x came with APR, IIS, Domino and others should have no
problems to use an external APR library (.so, .dll).
So the remaining question will be shoud we drop Apache 1.3.x support
in future JK 1.2.x or should
From: Henri Gomez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well JK using APR will be a good solution for every webservers but Apache
1.3.x.
Apache 2.x came with APR, IIS, Domino and others should have no
problems to use an external APR library (.so, .dll).
So the remaining question will be shoud we drop Apache
Henri Gomez wrote:
Well JK using APR will be a good solution for every webservers but Apache 1.3.x.
Apache 2.x came with APR, IIS, Domino and others should have no
problems to use an external APR library (.so, .dll).
So the remaining question will be shoud we drop Apache 1.3.x support
in future
Costin Manolache wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
Well JK using APR will be a good solution for every webservers but
Apache 1.3.x.
Apache 2.x came with APR, IIS, Domino and others should have no
problems to use an external APR library (.so, .dll).
So the remaining question will be shoud we drop Apache
So is JK2 dead because of proxy_ajp? Why doesn't JK2 just replace JK?
Dave.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Dave Oxley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: JK Todo List
So is JK2 dead because of proxy_ajp? Why doesn't JK2 just replace JK?
JK2 is dead because (like mod_webapp before
Hi,
Here is my Todo List for JK:
- Documentation
- Use Apache coding style (already done 90%) using simple .indent.pro
- Fix all 64/32 bit compatibility issues.
- Backport IIS Worker thread pool from JK2.
- Backport some ajp messaging stuff from proxy_ajp (mostly performance).
- Backport shared
+1, will help as much as possible
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:28:49 +0200, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Here is my Todo List for JK:
- Documentation
- Use Apache coding style (already done 90%) using simple .indent.pro
- Fix all 64/32 bit compatibility issues.
- Backport IIS
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
Here is my Todo List for JK:
- Documentation
- Use Apache coding style (already done 90%) using simple .indent.pro
- Fix all 64/32 bit compatibility issues.
- Backport IIS Worker thread pool from JK2.
- Backport some ajp messaging stuff from proxy_ajp (mostly performance).
-
Remy Maucherat wrote:
- Backport JNI from JK2 with lots improvements.
I still don't see benefits in JNI as a transport for JK. Only trouble
(no matter how I look at it, it seems like it would actually make the
whole system much less robust) and complexity.
Did I miss something ?
The JNI was
Remy Maucherat wrote:
- Backport JNI from JK2 with lots improvements.
I still don't see benefits in JNI as a transport for JK. Only trouble
(no matter how I look at it, it seems like it would actually make the
whole system much less robust) and complexity.
Did I miss something ?
I have to agree
Todo List
Hi,
Here is my Todo List for JK:
- Documentation
- Use Apache coding style (already done 90%) using simple .indent.pro
- Fix all 64/32 bit compatibility issues.
- Backport IIS Worker thread pool from JK2.
- Backport some ajp messaging stuff from proxy_ajp (mostly performance).
- Backport
Bill Barker wrote:
Over all, I don't, personally, think that it's worth trying to build on
the existing Jk code base. However, if you have an itch
Well, we deceased JK2, for Apache2.1 we have proxy_ajp.
Until Apache2.1 becomes the only server around the net,
I'll stick with JK for all those
Mladen Turk wrote:
Bill Barker wrote:
Over all, I don't, personally, think that it's worth trying to build
on the existing Jk code base. However, if you have an itch
Well, we deceased JK2, for Apache2.1 we have proxy_ajp.
Until Apache2.1 becomes the only server around the net,
I'll stick
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Over all, I don't, personally, think that it's worth trying to build
on the existing Jk code base. However, if you have an itch
Well, we deceased JK2, for Apache2.1 we have proxy_ajp.
Until Apache2.1 becomes the only server around the net,
I'll stick with JK for all
From: Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Over all, I don't, personally, think that it's worth trying to build
on the existing Jk code base. However, if you have an itch
Well, we deceased JK2, for Apache2.1 we have proxy_ajp.
Until Apache2.1 becomes the only server
18 matches
Mail list logo