[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 09:51:20AM -0500, Jess M. Holle wrote:
It would be nicest of all to have builds of each version of the core for
each platform -- and pluggable binaries of all the extra modules for
each version/platform as well.
Eergh.. this
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 09:51:20AM -0500, Jess M. Holle wrote:
It would be nicest of all to have builds of each version of the core for
each platform -- and pluggable binaries of all the extra modules for
each version/platform as well.
Eergh.. this sounds like a maintenance nightmare.
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at
all clear what should get in. Indeed, a repository would be a better
idea, with an apache distribution with no modules ( or only the core
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Peter Van Biesen wrote:
how do you see this ? A core server with a bunch of .so's or hooks in
the build process to statically link optional modules ?
Check out FreeBSD ports; basically a set of simple make files like:
ls /usr/ports//mod_*
mod_access_identd
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 01:15:43PM +0200, Peter Van Biesen wrote:
servlets, most apaches will use mod_jk anyway.
I beg to differ.
Hello,
I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core distribution.
It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution, what if an
other container implements the protocol ? Moreover, the mod_jk is of no
use to other webservers than apache and with the increased use of
I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core
distribution.
The jk is not in the TC distribution, but rather in the
jakarta-tomcat-connectors.
It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution,
That's your opinion, and you should first ask the question to the right
Mladen Turk wrote:
I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core
distribution.
The jk is not in the TC distribution, but rather in the
jakarta-tomcat-connectors.
My mistake.
It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution,
That's your opinion, and you
From Peter Van Biesen
Anyway, I gathered that apache was a organization that
promoted public initiative. Apparently, it is not
appreciated. I hope your attitude will get you far in your
carreer ( probably a management position, I'm sure ... ).
There is no need to take that personal.
Mladen Turk wrote:
There is no need to take that personal. You should post that question to
the [EMAIL PROTECTED] first. No one is pushing you out, and
all your ideas and thoughts will be highly appreciated.
OK
Second, if you are asking for a vote then IMO there should be some sort
of
registry/repository becomes reality, jk should stay where it is.
sterling
-- Original Message --
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:15:43 +0200
From: Peter Van Biesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Hello,
I'd like to start
: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Hello,
I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core distribution.
It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution, what if an
other container implements the protocol ? Moreover, the mod_jk is of no
use to other webservers
-- Original Message --
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:24:01 +0200
From: Peter Van Biesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at
all clear what
registry/repository becomes reality, jk should stay where it is.
sterling
-- Original Message --
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:15:43 +0200
From: Peter Van Biesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Hello
14 matches
Mail list logo
