Eric B. wrote: > However, all this begs the question - what is the difference between mod_jk > which communicates via AJP and mod_proxy_ajp? Doesn't mod_proxy_ajp just > communicate via the AJP protocol as well? In which case, isn't that > tantamount to having the same issues/considerations as the AJP protocol in > the first place?
I don't tend to work on the mod_jk / mod_proxy_ajp code so others will be able to give you more detail. mod_proxy_ajp is a port of mod_jk to the mod_proxy_* framework. It added mod_proxy_balancer and mod_proxy_ajp. Both use the AJP protocol and the Tomcat connector is exactly the same. The main issue is that bugs tend to get fixed faster in mod_jk so it is generally more stable. That said, the code changes faster in mod_jk so there is also a greater risk of a regression. Overall, general experience to date has shown mod_jk to be a better choice than mod_proxy_ajp. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
