On May 31, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 3:47 pm, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Of course, there is a growing school of thought that questions
whether the whole AJP stuff itself is worthwhile... just
proxy HTTP and be done with it. :)
This was a question raised way back when before the ajp work
question was whether mod_jk or mod_proxy_http was faster. It turned
mod_jk was faster, and so we have mod_proxy_ajp, but that was in
before mod_proxy_http had a connection pool and load balancing.
It would be interesting to benchmark http and ajp again to see what
difference is today with the connection pool enabled on both.
AJP had 2 things going for it, IIRC:
1. It was binary, so there was the transmission savings
2. Tomcat could handle AJP faster and more efficiently than
HTTP (the AJP endpoints were quicker than the HTTP
#2 has been the most changing, and is, at least IMO, not
a real factor nowadays. #1 is still nice, plus, of
course, not being holden to HTTP, there's stuff that
can be added at the protocol level to make
the WebServer->Tomcat interaction more efficient
(so maybe that's reason #3 :) ).