I think Dan is right on this one - improving the configuration
of mod_jk
is probably the most important thing, and merging with mod_webapp and
porting it's protocol and config mechanism would be a good way
to do that.
I agree that integrating mod_webapp functionnalities is not
a priority for
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
I think Dan is right on this one - improving the configuration
of mod_jk
is probably the most important thing, and merging with mod_webapp and
porting it's protocol and config mechanism would be a good way
to do that.
I agree that integrating
In terms of integrating mod_jk/mod_webapp, I think this might be worthwhile
-- specifically, mod_jk was built to handle a variety of protocols (ajp12,
ajp13, etc.). So writing a protocol handler for the mod_webapp protocol
would give a lot of benefits -- load-balancing, support for a variety of
Henri,
I think Dan is right on this one - improving the configuration of mod_jk
is probably the most important thing, and merging with mod_webapp and
porting it's protocol and config mechanism would be a good way to do that.
I think the best way to do that would be a revolution ( like
GOMEZ Henri at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fine to see mod_webapp back to life :)
Well, I don't really know how happy I am...
1) You added many features interesting in building (autoconf, apr)
which we could study to adapt to mod_jk (at least autoconf).
That's what was expected, I
Pier P. Fumagalli at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GOMEZ Henri at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fine to see mod_webapp back to life :)
Well, I don't really know how happy I am...
That sounds not right... I'm happy to have something working, I'm not happy
about how we ended up there... (yeah...
3) You still didn't tell us what you think into merging mod_webapp
and mod_jk.
And I'll continue to be silent on that... As I don't really
want to start another flamewar...
I've been thru enough already on that, and
all I can say
is that I'll let the people on this list (but me) decide...
on 4/17/01 5:12 PM, "GOMEZ Henri" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mod_jk is the de-facto standard to link a web server (not only
Apache) to tomcat. mod_webapp is really new and having it
incompatible with mod_jk will raise more questions and requests
than necessary.
Huh? mod_jk is not 100%
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:
on 4/17/01 5:12 PM, "GOMEZ Henri" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
[ ] I want to have a ajp12/ajp13 in Tomcat 4.0 ?
Is the requirements of the Servlet API technically feasible for allowing
this to exist?
There are some very significant
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:
mod_jk is the de-facto standard to link a web server (not only
Apache) to tomcat. mod_webapp is really new and having it
incompatible with mod_jk will raise more questions and requests
than necessary.
Huh? mod_jk is not 100% compatible with
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
* Configuration complexity - The above issues can often be dealt with
by tediously configuring everything twice (once in web.xml and once
in httpd.conf). A better approach would be to make ajp12/ajp13
auto-configure Apache from the
Why not use mod_webapp/mod_jk to start the
web-connector sub-project allowing us to remove many question
related to connectors from Tomcat user/dev lists ?
The same web-connector project could be used against
Tomcat 3.2/3.3/4.0 but not be restricted to Tomcat.
Any project
12 matches
Mail list logo
