(. .)
> PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo...
> PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 8:10 PM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&
DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
>-Original Message-
>From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 8:10 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: IIS Connector for TC4.0
>
>
>"GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
"GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Release TC 3.3/4.0
DOH! :)
> 2) Start to think on how to merge AJP14/WARP
Let me know when
> 3) Add the AJP14-WARP protocol to mod_jk and mod_webapp (adaptation)
I'll keep track of the protocol modifications in TC4 and WebApp
> 4) Add AP
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> > >Maybe to you, but buddy "Costin" doesn't like it... :)
> >
> > No I'm sure Costin like the merge, and I like
> > you all comment the following timing :
I like the merge, I don't like the idea of moving all jk features
over to webapp ( and not
GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
> >> WebApp will talk only "AJPv14/WARP", based on APR, and only
> >>> ported to Apache
> >>> 1.3 and 2.0, when we're happy with it, with the 3.3
> >implementation of
> >>> "AJPv14/WARP", with the new/revised/corrected APR-based API,
> >>> we can start
> >>> porting all other
>> WebApp will talk only "AJPv14/WARP", based on APR, and only
>>> ported to Apache
>>> 1.3 and 2.0, when we're happy with it, with the 3.3
>implementation of
>>> "AJPv14/WARP", with the new/revised/corrected APR-based API,
>>> we can start
>>> porting all other stuff over, and in 12 years time w
"GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, IMO, it's a win-win situation... JK can support all
>> web-servers and all
>> "old" protocols, it's tested, it works, we just need to make
>> it able to talk
>> the new "AJPv14/WARP" protocol and can be used as the "strong"
>> foundation.
>> WebApp
>So, IMO, it's a win-win situation... JK can support all
>web-servers and all
>"old" protocols, it's tested, it works, we just need to make
>it able to talk
>the new "AJPv14/WARP" protocol and can be used as the "strong"
>foundation.
>WebApp will talk only "AJPv14/WARP", based on APR, and only
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
>> Anyway, switching to APR is not that easy (IMO), if you want to take
>> advantage of ALL which is provided by APR (I'm deprecating ANSI-C here).
>
> This is an incremental process, and can only incr
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
>> At the same time, since also JK is moving towards APR, but they're far
>> behind what WebApp does ATM, let's try to refine/update/change the WebApp
>> API, already based on APR, and work on it as the
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> Anyway, switching to APR is not that easy (IMO), if you want to take
> advantage of ALL which is provided by APR (I'm deprecating ANSI-C here).
This is an incremental process, and can only increase the stability of jk.
> > Refactoring/cleaning of jk
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> At the same time, since also JK is moving towards APR, but they're far
> behind what WebApp does ATM, let's try to refine/update/change the WebApp
> API, already based on APR, and work on it as the APR based connector, when
> that is ready, we can thin
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My view:
>
> It should happen only after 3.3 (and 4.0) is released, switching to APR is
> reasonably easy ( IMHO ), adding warp protocol is doable ( but require
> some changes in the request representation to use the same struct as the other
> jk
"Andy Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>>
>> "Andy Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gal, Developers,
>>>
>>> I'm about to produce a webapp version of the Domino connector for TC4.0,
>>> and I see there isn't an IIS connector. Is anyone working on thi
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> Regarding a long-term plan, I heard Costin and Henri talking about
> refactorying the JK connector APIs, and using APR, but that actually nothing
> is ready yet (correct me if I'm wrong)...
> My alleged thought right now goes to a big input in terms o
"Andy Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy Armstrong wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gal, Developers,
>>
>> I'm about to produce a webapp version of the Domino connector for TC4.0,
>> and I see there isn't an IIS connector. Is anyone working on this? Want
>> me to take a look?
>
> (Sorry to follow mys
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> "Andy Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gal, Developers,
> >
> > I'm about to produce a webapp version of the Domino connector for TC4.0,
> > and I see there isn't an IIS connector. Is anyone working on this? Want
> > me to take a look?
>
> No, I'm not yet
"Andy Armstrong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Gal, Developers,
>
> I'm about to produce a webapp version of the Domino connector for TC4.0,
> and I see there isn't an IIS connector. Is anyone working on this? Want
> me to take a look?
No, I'm not yet working on those. I'm actually concentrat
Andy Armstrong wrote:
>
> Hi Gal, Developers,
>
> I'm about to produce a webapp version of the Domino connector for TC4.0,
> and I see there isn't an IIS connector. Is anyone working on this? Want
> me to take a look?
(Sorry to follow myself up)
Off-list I've had it explained to me that jk is
19 matches
Mail list logo
