On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 01:47:59PM +0100, Remy Maucherat wrote: > Tim Funk wrote: > > Does this pretty much says that jk2 is now not recommended? (At least > > until it gets more cleanup) So I can update the FAQ. > > No, this means there's one connector on the Java side, so the number was > useless. > > We could rename that to AJP connector, BTW. I almost did it, but left JK > as the name in the end. > I believe it would be better to use the protocol name (AJP) as the > connector name, so that it is not tied to any native code or another > subproject's name. I can make the change.
Please do the rename. I think there is considerable confusion in the community about the status of mod_jk[2], and this name overlap doesn't help. If you spend any time in #tomcat, you'll notice that all the questions are either 1) I'm doing something really dumb and hope everyone here will write my app for me and 2) problems with mod_jk/jk2. And from the mod_jk2 pages, it looks like mod_jk2 is the preferred code. It's clear from lurking tomcat-dev that it isn't. (BTW, lurk #tomcat sometime. It's "educating".) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Some people have a way with words, while others... erm... thingy. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
