Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-12 Thread Henri Gomez
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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-12 Thread Costin Manolache
: - 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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-11 Thread Henri Gomez
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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-11 Thread Kurt Miller
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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-11 Thread Costin Manolache
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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-11 Thread Remy Maucherat
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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-11 Thread Dave Oxley
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]

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-11 Thread Bill Barker
- 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

JK Todo List

2004-10-08 Thread Mladen Turk
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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-08 Thread Henri Gomez
+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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-08 Thread Remy Maucherat
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). -

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-08 Thread Mladen Turk
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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-08 Thread Costin Manolache
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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-08 Thread Bill Barker
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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-08 Thread Mladen Turk
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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-08 Thread Remy Maucherat
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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-08 Thread Mladen Turk
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

Re: JK Todo List

2004-10-08 Thread Kurt Miller
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