Re: mod_jk2 future?
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 02:02:56PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : I will check with the developpers team whether switching from JK2 to JK : could be a problem but is there any known issues in switching from one : connector to the other (apart for the configuration files) I can't say, as I've never had to make that switch in a production app. I don't see what else could trip you up, though, unless you have a strong tie to some jk2-specific feature. -QM -- software -- http://www.brandxdev.net tech news -- http://www.RoarNetworX.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk2 future?
Actually I don't remember. When we decided to use Tomcat instead of Websphere a few months ago, I read quite a lot of documentation/articles (I'm not a developer, but the systems' administrator of our linux servers). I just remember reading the following line because I saved it: ""jk2 is a refactoring of mod_jk and uses the Apache Portable Runtime (apr). If you are using Apache 2.0, you'll might want to use jk2". Also in the tomcat-connector documentation, http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc-archive/jk2/index.html , (now in archive but not at the time of my readings): "JK2 is a refactoring of JK and is much more powerfull." and then "Even if it works with Apache 1.3, JK2 has been developed with Apache 2.0 in mind, " and "JK2 improves the modularity and has a better separation between protocol and physical layer". So at that time the impression was really of JK2 being the successor of JK I will check with the developpers team whether switching from JK2 to JK could be a problem but is there any known issues in switching from one connector to the other (apart for the configuration files) Thank you all for your answers and have a nice day Gaël QM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/12/2004 12.58.30: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 12:16:51PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > : Tomcat), Tomcat-5.0.28, configured with mod_jk2 because I read that md_jk2 > : was the connector to use with apache 2.x.x > > Where did you read this? > I ask because plain mod_jk (aka version 1) works just fine with Apache > 2.x. A lot of people went through the hassles of setting up jk2 just to > use Apache 2.x, and for no good reason. > > -QM > > -- > > software -- http://www.brandxdev.net > tech news -- http://www.RoarNetworX.com > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk2 future?
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 12:16:51PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : Tomcat), Tomcat-5.0.28, configured with mod_jk2 because I read that md_jk2 : was the connector to use with apache 2.x.x Where did you read this? I ask because plain mod_jk (aka version 1) works just fine with Apache 2.x. A lot of people went through the hassles of setting up jk2 just to use Apache 2.x, and for no good reason. -QM -- software -- http://www.brandxdev.net tech news -- http://www.RoarNetworX.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mod_jk2 future?
The recommended ways to go are JK or mod_proxy_ajp. Ta Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 December 2004 11:17 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: mod_jk2 future? Hi all, I've a jsp-based application (interface to an oracle db) that will go in production in January. The server is actually configured this way: SuSe 9.0, Apache 2.0.48 (with a virtual host redirecting everything to Tomcat), Tomcat-5.0.28, configured with mod_jk2 because I read that md_jk2 was the connector to use with apache 2.x.x I read (by chance?) somewhere on the jakarta web site that mod_jk2 (aka JK2) is officially unsupported since mid-November. At this point I'm not sure what to do: should I use JK? Should I stay with mod_jk2 and wait for its successor which should be (??) within the core Apache distribution? Any advice would be greatly appreciated Regards, Gaël - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any opinions expressed in this E-mail may be those of the individual and not necessarily the company. This E-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this E-mail in error and that any use or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error please notify the beCogent postmaster at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unless expressly stated, opinions in this email are those of the individual sender and not beCogent Ltd. You must take full responsibility for virus checking this email and any attachments. Please note that the content of this email or any of its attachments may contain data that falls within the scope of the Data Protection Acts and that you must ensure that any handling or processing of such data by you is fully compliant with the terms and provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 and 1998. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_jk2 future?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read (by chance?) somewhere on the jakarta web site that mod_jk2 (aka JK2) is officially unsupported since mid-November. Well, it is actually not supported for a much longer time :). At this point I'm not sure what to do: should I use JK? Should I stay with mod_jk2 and wait for its successor which should be (??) within the core Apache distribution? Any advice would be greatly appreciated If you already have a configured server that is working and you face no problems, stay with JK2, but be prepared for no support. If not use JK, cause JK2 successor (proxy_ajp) will not be available for Apache2.0, but rater for the upcoming Apache2.1/2.2 Regards, Mladen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
