1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
-Original Message-
From: Bojan Smojver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 1:19 AM
To: Tomcat Dev List
Subject: RE: index.*: mod_jk 1.2.0 vs. Apache 2.0.36
It doesn't work in either case. In this case it should be index.vm,
since
...oOOo..(_)..oOOo...
PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
-Original Message-
From: Bojan Smojver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 1:19 AM
To: Tomcat Dev List
Subject: RE: index.*: mod_jk 1.2.0 vs. Apache 2.0.36
It doesn't
Yes, pretty much. I'm guessing that Apache will try it's own page types
first (index.shtml, index.html etc.) and if if doesn't find any, pass
the request to Tomcat (through mod_jk) for index.jsp and then index.vm
(in that order, since that's how it's specified in DirectoryIndex).
Just for the
On Wed, 2002-06-19 at 18:45, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
Hum, I think the problem should be easier to detect (I hope so)
Yeah, I agree. I actually think that my configuration could be screwed
somewhere, somehow (although I don't see how) because almost all Apache
2.0.x/Tomcat 3.3.x users would run into
Hum, I think the problem should be easier to detect (I hope so)
Yeah, I agree. I actually think that my configuration could be screwed
somewhere, somehow (although I don't see how) because almost all Apache
2.0.x/Tomcat 3.3.x users would run into this kind of problem...
Not sure. In fact many
question.
Should mod_jk forward to tomcat index.jsp or index.vm ?
-
Henri Gomez ___[_]
EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .)
PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo...
PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
-Original
