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
started, the
question was whether mod_jk or mod_proxy_http was faster. It turned
out
mod_jk was faster, and so we have mod_proxy_ajp, but that was in
the days
before mod_proxy_http had a connection pool and load balancing.
It would be interesting to benchmark http and ajp again to see what
the
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
endpoint implementations)
#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 :) ).
