+1
I think we should tag the code with jk_1_4 ( considering the jk that was
included with 3.1 == jk1.1, etc ). It seems jk_1_4 will work
with 3.3, 4.0.x and 4.1 ( and the C code can be used for 3.2.x for bug
fixes ).
Regarding jk2, I'm still working, the current strugle is with the unix
domain
I think we should tag the code with jk_1_4 ( considering the
jk that was
included with 3.1 == jk1.1, etc ). It seems jk_1_4 will work
with 3.3, 4.0.x and 4.1 ( and the C code can be used for 3.2.x for bug
fixes ).
jk_1_4 is fine with me -- as long as it is tagged with something :)
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Kevin Seguin wrote:
i was thinking that for tomcat 4.0.2, the old stuff, jk/native,
jk/java/org/apache/ajp, would be considered the 'stable' (althought still
beta quality) code, and the new jk2, o.a.jk would be considered still
'experimental'. just a thought, though - i
Kevin Seguin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
there was a thread a couple weeks ago regarding what to do with j-t-c and
tomcat 4.0.2. i believe it was decided that the 4.0.2 release would contain
the same jars from j-t-c (tomcat-ajp.jar, tomcat-util.jar) as 4.0.1 did.
well, i just did some quick
Daniel Rall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The mod_webapp connector code is definitely in a freshening. :)
^
need of
Specifically, it would be great to get in Pier's fix to the file
upload problem (if not
I think we should tag the code with jk_1_4 ( considering
the jk that was
included with 3.1 == jk1.1, etc ). It seems jk_1_4 will work
with 3.3, 4.0.x and 4.1 ( and the C code can be used for
3.2.x for bug
fixes ).
+1.
When it's done and when you can confirm it's working, I think
There is a small (possible) bug I'm debugging, related with lb which in
some cases seem to fail to be 'sticky' ( it's not specific to jk1.4,
it has been around forever from what I can see ).
The fix should be small, I still have problems reproducing the bug
so I can test the fix. Don't wait for
