- Original Message -
From: "Mike Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:01 AM
Subject: RE: Jk2 object model
I'm definitely interested in helping with this but feel I'm out of the loop
a little. What areas
lache
> Sent: 11. sije*anj 2004 2:36
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
>
> >
> > But this time I'd like to spend a month or so doing 'real' design
> > without the single line of code. If we manage to put and
> describe our
> From: Costin Manolache
> Sent: 11. siječanj 2004 2:36
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
>
> >
> > But this time I'd like to spend a month or so doing 'real' design
> > without the single line of code. If we man
Mladen Turk wrote:
From: Henri Gomez
As many I feel that jk (and maybe also jk2) are now pretty
stable, and I don't see the need for a new just web/tomcat connector.
Finally someone :-).
That's why I did try to use the revolutionary approach. Jet another
connector wouldn't make a much dif
> From: Henri Gomez
>
>
> As many I feel that jk (and maybe also jk2) are now pretty
> stable, and I don't see the need for a new just web/tomcat connector.
>
Finally someone :-).
That's why I did try to use the revolutionary approach. Jet another
connector wouldn't make a much difference (
Henri Gomez a écrit :
Mladen Turk a écrit :
-Original Message-
From: jean-frederic clere Sent: 9. siječanj 2004 8:35
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
The concept (approach) as I see it is to be able to make a
connector
(integrator), that would allow the
Mladen Turk a écrit :
-Original Message-
From: jean-frederic clere
Sent: 9. siječanj 2004 8:35
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
The concept (approach) as I see it is to be able to make a
connector
(integrator), that would allow the zero-based-configuration
> -Original Message-
> From: jean-frederic clere
> Sent: 9. siječanj 2004 8:35
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
>
> >
> >>The concept (approach) as I see it is to be able to make a
> connector
> >>
Mike Anderson wrote:
I agree that the current connectors (jk and jk2) are fairly "stable and
done" because they just work. The hardest part in using them is that
there is a lot of duplicated setup between the Java/Tomcat side and the
webserver configuration just to get things working. Then, when
- Original Message -
From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
> Mladen Turk wrote:
> >>From: Costin Manolache
> >>
> >>So my suggestio
Mladen Turk wrote:
From: Costin Manolache
So my suggestion ( deja vue ? ) is to use "evolution" :-). A change in
the OO model ( if needed ) or fixing/improving the current one is not
as big change as it seems - it's mostly in initialization code.
How about 'revolution'? On the other hand how doe
I agree that the current connectors (jk and jk2) are fairly "stable and
done" because they just work. The hardest part in using them is that
there is a lot of duplicated setup between the Java/Tomcat side and the
webserver configuration just to get things working. Then, when you add
a new webapp
> From: Costin Manolache
>
> So my suggestion ( deja vue ? ) is to use "evolution" :-). A change in
> the OO model ( if needed ) or fixing/improving the current one is not
> as big change as it seems - it's mostly in initialization code.
>
How about 'revolution'? On the other hand how does the ev
The major mistake in "jk2" is the "2" in the name. It was an error to
fork ( even if it was easier to code and move it ) instead of improving
mod_jk and adding/fixing.
In JNI mode and from configuration perspective - as well as ability to
use non-tcp-socket communation - jk2 is way ahead. As cod
Hate to quote myself, but...
>
> As I said, the performance isn't a priority here, but rather
> usability.
> I'm sure that TC guys will be open here, and we will see
> (perhaps even in
> 5.1) the 'open TC API', that could be directly used, or
> seamlessly integrated from the native side.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > I agree with you that this would be JK3, rather then JK2 on
> steroids
> > :-), and it would require a different perspective.
> > I'm in favor of _usability_ over performance in that new approach.
> >
>
> Ja
Mladen Turk a écrit :
Hi,
Since I've started few months ago all the C++ fuzziness (I did posted even
some source to Costin back then),
my intention wasn't to CPP-ize the existing code, but rather to move that
'dead' code on some new tracks.
What I'm looking since then is some kind of different ap
t a major JK2 technological advantage for more
then a year, and there isn't much interest of the developer community
thought.
I also use the JK for production servers, and it is doing just fine for what
it needs to.
MT.
> -Original Message-
> From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
I'm pretty busy these days so I can't works on JK2 as I want to.
Some ideas/reflexions.
JK2 is very similar to JK, from the tomcat point of vue, since the
same ajp13 protocol is used, and may be in such case we could see JK2
too similar to JK to see users switch to JK2 (for instance we're still
u
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:50:32AM +0100, Mladen Turk wrote:
> Me too...
> The JK2 IMO is a pretty dead project.
> Henri tried to boost that forcing the APR as a default, we did some work,
> but it is agin stalled.
Could someone put a big warning statment on the web site about this?
Honestly, 90
is process for each worker's performance.
Regards,
Glenn
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:06AM +0100, Mladen Turk wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bill Barker
Sent: 7. sije?anj 2004 9:22
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
I'm interested if jk2 could "plu
h worker's performance.
Regards,
Glenn
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:06AM +0100, Mladen Turk wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bill Barker
> > Sent: 7. sije?anj 2004 9:22
> > To: Tomcat Developers List
> > Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Barker
> Sent: 7. siječanj 2004 9:22
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
>
>
> >
> > I'm interested if jk2 could "plug" into more applications -
> there aren't
> &g
- Original Message -
From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
> Mladen Turk wrote:
> >
> >
> > From Costin Manolache
> >
> &g
Mladen Turk wrote:
From Costin Manolache
Sent: 6. siječanj 2004 8:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
I remember some time ago Mladen (?) was suggesting to use
C++ for jk2
instead of the pseudo-OO programming.
I am
>From Costin Manolache
> Sent: 6. siječanj 2004 8:11
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
>
> jean-frederic clere wrote:
> > Costin Manolache wrote:
> >
> >> I remember some time ago Mladen (?) was suggesting to use
> C++ for jk2
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
I remember some time ago Mladen (?) was suggesting to use C++ for jk2
instead of the pseudo-OO programming.
I am -1 for using C++... And wondering why you want to use C++.
I don't actually want to use C++ - I'm just a bit unhappy with the
"rei
Costin Manolache wrote:
I remember some time ago Mladen (?) was suggesting to use C++ for jk2
instead of the pseudo-OO programming.
I am -1 for using C++... And wondering why you want to use C++.
Did anything got discussed/decided
about this or the low-level model ?
Costin
Bill Barker a écrit :
- Original Message -
From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 11:44 PM
Subject: Jk2 object model
I remember some time ago Mladen (?) was suggesting to use C++ for jk2
instead of the pseudo-OO programming.
- Original Message -
From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 11:44 PM
Subject: Jk2 object model
> I remember some time ago Mladen (?) was suggesting to use C++ for jk2
> instead of the pseudo-OO programming. Did anything got di
30 matches
Mail list logo
