Hi > Finally for the stupid question of the day. I notice alot of information re: merging apache and tomcat. My question is why? I'm assuming the Apache is better at serving web pages that Tomcat but is that the only reason? It would seem that for a small website, just having Tomcat would be fine. Any thoughts?
Most webmasters started with apache and somewhen decided to do dynamic stuff with tomcat. So they didn't want to break with apache and use tomcat as add-on, as they did with php. And people tend not to change running systems. Moreover older tomcat versions, exspecially older java vms were slower then apache was. Nowadays, java vms are faster and tomcat is faster as well. And there are really big sites, which use tomcat without apache or another web server. [1] So, YES, it IS fine just having Tomcat for a small website, as well as for larger sites. The only scenario in that I would use apache as webserver in front of tomcat if the site also requires php or another scripting language additionally to java. Tomcat has it's CGI servlets, but it is far from beating apaches mod_php in speed (up to now...). Regards, Steffen [1] I was very impressed finding jake2, which is an java implementation of quake2. I always thought java would be fast for servlets and such but leaked speed in graphics and video compared to non-vm languages, but jake2 reaches about 99% of the frame rate of quake2 on the same hardware...
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
