> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Jim Jagielski > > I think we're in agreement that the current "failover" does > not work as it should with HTTP, and is quite > cumbersome to get it to work. :)
Apart from the fact that it currently does not even work without patches :-). So I am keen on feedback by Robby. I hope to find time to commit these changes to the trunk tonight, so that it works at least in the cumbersome way :-). > > I hope to later on this week work on code that has > a real "hot standby" status, and avoids the requirement > for sticky sessions. It won't replace what's in > there now (for AJP) but will make it easier > to implement failover for simple tasks. > Sounds good. Regards Rüdiger
