Re: conclusions to FAQs on mod_proxy_ajp vs. mod_jk?

2006-05-31 Thread Jim Jagielski
On May 28, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: 3. Currently connections are not checked if they are healthy *before* a request is send (something like mod_jk's connect_timeout, prepost_timeout). I think this would be nice to have, but I guess it is not easy to do this in a

Re: conclusions to FAQs on mod_proxy_ajp vs. mod_jk?

2006-05-31 Thread Graham Leggett
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

Re: conclusions to FAQs on mod_proxy_ajp vs. mod_jk?

2006-05-31 Thread Mladen Turk
Jim Jagielski wrote: I guess it depend on what we mean by healthy... We could ping the socket and make sure there's a response at the network stack layer, which would be protocol agnostic. Or, each proxy module would need to implement some protocol specific ping/pong test. Right, the

Re: conclusions to FAQs on mod_proxy_ajp vs. mod_jk?

2006-05-31 Thread Jim Jagielski
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

Re: conclusions to FAQs on mod_proxy_ajp vs. mod_jk?

2006-05-31 Thread Jim Jagielski
On May 31, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Mladen Turk wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I guess it depend on what we mean by healthy... We could ping the socket and make sure there's a response at the network stack layer, which would be protocol agnostic. Or, each proxy module would need to implement some

Re: conclusions to FAQs on mod_proxy_ajp vs. mod_jk?

2006-05-28 Thread Jeff Trawick
On 5/27/06, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05/27/2006 03:58 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: Are there still fundamental pieces missing from mod_proxy_ajp + mod_proxy_balancer which have to be resolved before mod_proxy_ajp is the natural solution for anybody on Apache = 2.2? Currently

Re: conclusions to FAQs on mod_proxy_ajp vs. mod_jk?

2006-05-28 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 05/28/2006 03:18 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: On 5/27/06, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 05/27/2006 03:58 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: Are there still fundamental pieces missing from mod_proxy_ajp + mod_proxy_balancer which have to be resolved before mod_proxy_ajp is the natural solution for

Re: conclusions to FAQs on mod_proxy_ajp vs. mod_jk?

2006-05-27 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 05/27/2006 03:58 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: Are there still fundamental pieces missing from mod_proxy_ajp + mod_proxy_balancer which have to be resolved before mod_proxy_ajp is the natural solution for anybody on Apache = 2.2? Currently mod_proxy_balancer lacks the domain feature of