Re: More mod_jk/tomcat integration
Of course, an RPM is not necessary here - I'll settle for a build. These seem to be missing from the builds/jakarta-tomcat-connectors directory, although there are encouraging messages about how the empty places will soon be filled. Are we talking days or weeks for this? Peter Peter B. West wrote: I have seen a number of questions about this in recent postings in the archive, so I am in good company. I am installing tomcat 4.0.4 with apache-1.3.23-11 rpms from redhat on a redhat 7.3 system. I had previously installed a beta version of 3.3 with the then-current apache, and I had the transfer of control from apache to tomcat via an ajp13 connector working. That was a while ago. Some questions: Is mod_webapp.so available in any of the rpms? If not, should I just remove references to it in server.xml and go with the ajp13 connector? What about mod_jk.so? It came with an earlier tomcat3.3 rpm. Is a current version still available in rpm? Why does the documentation refere to libexec/mod_*.so in a number of places? There is no libexec directory anywhere in my installation of apache. Neither is there a modules directory, but that doesn't stop the httpd.conf file referring to modules/mod_*.so. Are both modules and libexec translated in the bowels of apache? Should I replace all doumentation references to libexec/mod_*.so for unix systems with modules/mod_*.so? One of the references to libexec/mod_jk.so is in the section on Using ApacheConfig inthe AJP config page. The modJk attribute to the Listener element within the Host element is said to have this default. modJk (and , I think workersConfig) is on the apache side of the equation, isn't it? Yet modJk and workersConfig (default conf/jk/workers.properties) are supposedly referenced relative to CATALINA_HOME by default. This doesn't seem to make sense. What is the rationale for this? Peter -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://powerup.com.au/~pbwest Lord, to whom shall we go? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration
If you're using apache with tomcat, there is no benefit to using mod_webapp. Mod_webapp does not differentiate between static and dynamic content at this time...if you use mod_webapp, all content will be served by tomcat. If you want apache to serve static content, and tomcat to server dynamic content, you want mod_jk. I would remove references to mod_webapp in your configuration. John Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:55 PM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: More mod_jk/tomcat integration I have seen a number of questions about this in recent postings in the archive, so I am in good company. I am installing tomcat 4.0.4 with apache-1.3.23-11 rpms from redhat on a redhat 7.3 system. I had previously installed a beta version of 3.3 with the then-current apache, and I had the transfer of control from apache to tomcat via an ajp13 connector working. That was a while ago. Some questions: Is mod_webapp.so available in any of the rpms? If not, should I just remove references to it in server.xml and go with the ajp13 connector? What about mod_jk.so? It came with an earlier tomcat3.3 rpm. Is a current version still available in rpm? Why does the documentation refere to libexec/mod_*.so in a number of places? There is no libexec directory anywhere in my installation of apache. Neither is there a modules directory, but that doesn't stop the httpd.conf file referring to modules/mod_*.so. Are both modules and libexec translated in the bowels of apache? Should I replace all doumentation references to libexec/mod_*.so for unix systems with modules/mod_*.so? One of the references to libexec/mod_jk.so is in the section on Using ApacheConfig inthe AJP config page. The modJk attribute to the Listener element within the Host element is said to have this default. modJk (and , I think workersConfig) is on the apache side of the equation, isn't it? Yet modJk and workersConfig (default conf/jk/workers.properties) are supposedly referenced relative to CATALINA_HOME by default. This doesn't seem to make sense. What is the rationale for this? Peter -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://powerup.com.au/~pbwest Lord, to whom shall we go? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration
In that scenario, how would tomcat reference static (apache) content? Would all of the responses generated by servlets and JSPs be text only? To allow a page generated by tomcat (via servlet or JSP) to see an image located in /image under the apache site root, you would have to use absolute paths: http://some.domain.com/image/static_image.gif . Otherwise, you will need a corresponding image folder within the web application context with duplicates of all the static content that exists under the apache root. That's twice the filespace, twice the management, etc. Seems like it would be easier all around to just create one site root, and allow apache and tomcat to serve content out of that one location, using relative paths, and allow apache to serve the static content. In that scenario, the connector you would want is mod_jk, not mod_webapp. I never successfully compiled and integrated mod_webapp before discovering it's limitations, so I can't say for sure, but as I understand it, if you have a directory that can be seen by both apache and tomcat, and you are using mod_webapp, all content in that directory will be served by tomcat, regardless of it's type. I'm not advocating one way or the other, I just usually try and post replies to people who state that they are using mod_webapp, because many of them do not realize that mod_webapp can't differentiate content...they usually install/choose mod_webapp because it's supposed to be better than AJP, and while that may be true, the choice to use it should be an informed choice. If your situation allows you to separate your content like you've indicated, then mod_webapp might be the right choice. In my scenario, given there aren't any performance gains using mod_webapp (from what I can tell), mod_jk is the right choice. John Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Feng Zhou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 9:29 AM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration Hi John, I am newbie here but just have a question regarding the point you made below.What if the web site is configured to use separate directories for dynamic and static contents? Say one puts all images in /image directory and do not pass the directory to Tomcat. What would happen then if someone calls JSP page which uses the files under /image? WOuld that still be handled by TOmcat or Apache? We are running successfuly on Solaris 7 Apache 2.0.36+Tomcat 4.0.3 using mod_webapp, however it seems impossible to compile mod_jk on Solaris 7. The binary is available for Solaris 8, but not 7. I tried to use make or ant and both failed with compilation complaints. Has anybody done this successfuly? -Feng Zhou UNIX administrator Quotesmith.com -Original Message- From: Turner, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 8:18 AM To: 'Tomcat Users List' Subject: RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration If you're using apache with tomcat, there is no benefit to using mod_webapp. Mod_webapp does not differentiate between static and dynamic content at this time...if you use mod_webapp, all content will be served by tomcat. If you want apache to serve static content, and tomcat to server dynamic content, you want mod_jk. I would remove references to mod_webapp in your configuration. John Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:55 PM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: More mod_jk/tomcat integration I have seen a number of questions about this in recent postings in the archive, so I am in good company. I am installing tomcat 4.0.4 with apache-1.3.23-11 rpms from redhat on a redhat 7.3 system. I had previously installed a beta version of 3.3 with the then-current apache, and I had the transfer of control from apache to tomcat via an ajp13 connector working. That was a while ago. Some questions: Is mod_webapp.so available in any of the rpms? If not, should I just remove references to it in server.xml and go with the ajp13 connector? What about mod_jk.so? It came with an earlier tomcat3.3 rpm. Is a current version still available in rpm? Why does the documentation refere to libexec/mod_*.so in a number of places? There is no libexec directory anywhere in my installation of apache. Neither is there a modules directory, but that doesn't stop the httpd.conf file referring to modules/mod_*.so. Are both modules and libexec translated in the bowels of apache? Should I replace all doumentation references to libexec/mod_*.so for unix systems with modules/mod_*.so? One of the references to libexec/mod_jk.so is in the section on Using ApacheConfig inthe AJP config page. The modJk attribute to the Listener element within the Host element is said to have this default. modJk (and , I think workersConfig) is on the apache side of the equation, isn't it? Yet modJk and workersConfig (default conf
Re: More mod_jk/tomcat integration
John, Thanks for the clarification. Where can I find a mod_jk.so binary that works with my 1.3.23 and tomcat 4.0.4? Btw, how closely tied are modules to particular versions of apache? Peter Turner, John wrote: If you're using apache with tomcat, there is no benefit to using mod_webapp. Mod_webapp does not differentiate between static and dynamic content at this time...if you use mod_webapp, all content will be served by tomcat. If you want apache to serve static content, and tomcat to server dynamic content, you want mod_jk. I would remove references to mod_webapp in your configuration. -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://powerup.com.au/~pbwest Lord, to whom shall we go? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration
I'm fairly certain the binaries were removed several weeks back. You can compile from source here: http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-4.0/release/v4.0.4/src/ (you want the file labeled connectors) Perhaps someone on the list can send you a binary. The modules (connectors) are not co-ordinated with the Apache HTTP project or with Tomcat, as far as I can tell. Three different projects (HTTP, tomcat, connectors) and then each of the connectors (AJP, WARP) has it's own team, so something like 5 separate teams are involved. The AJP connector (mod_jk) works with Apache 1.3.x and Apache 2.0.x, and versions 3 and 4 of tomcat, as far as I know. John Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 11:21 AM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: More mod_jk/tomcat integration John, Thanks for the clarification. Where can I find a mod_jk.so binary that works with my 1.3.23 and tomcat 4.0.4? Btw, how closely tied are modules to particular versions of apache? Peter Turner, John wrote: If you're using apache with tomcat, there is no benefit to using mod_webapp. Mod_webapp does not differentiate between static and dynamic content at this time...if you use mod_webapp, all content will be served by tomcat. If you want apache to serve static content, and tomcat to server dynamic content, you want mod_jk. I would remove references to mod_webapp in your configuration. -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://powerup.com.au/~pbwest Lord, to whom shall we go? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <A RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John Re: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Peter B. West java.lang.IllegalStateException: getOutputStream(), Luminous Heart RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John -- Chronological -- -- Thread -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Reply via email to RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John Re: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Peter B. West java.lang.IllegalStateException: getOutputStream(), Luminous Heart RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John -- Chronological -- -- Thread -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Reply via email to RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John Re: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Peter B. West java.lang.IllegalStateException: getOutputStream(), Luminous Heart RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John -- Chronological -- -- Thread -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Reply via email to RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John Re: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Peter B. West java.lang.IllegalStateException: getOutputStream(), Luminous Heart RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John -- Chronological -- -- Thread -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Reply via email to RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John Re: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Peter B. West java.lang.IllegalStateException: getOutputStream(), Luminous Heart RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John -- Chronological -- -- Thread -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Reply via email to RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John Re: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Peter B. West java.lang.IllegalStateException: getOutputStream(), Luminous Heart RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John -- Chronological -- -- Thread -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Reply via email to Re: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Peter B. West java.lang.IllegalStateException: getOutputStream(), Luminous Heart RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John -- Chronological -- -- Thread -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Reply via email to Re: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Peter B. West java.lang.IllegalStateException: getOutputStream(), Luminous Heart RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John -- Chronological -- -- Thread -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]"> Reply via email to Re: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Peter B. West java.lang.IllegalStateException: getOutputStream(), Luminous Heart RE: More mod_jk/tomcat integration, Turner, John -- Chronological --
More mod_jk/tomcat integration
I have seen a number of questions about this in recent postings in the archive, so I am in good company. I am installing tomcat 4.0.4 with apache-1.3.23-11 rpms from redhat on a redhat 7.3 system. I had previously installed a beta version of 3.3 with the then-current apache, and I had the transfer of control from apache to tomcat via an ajp13 connector working. That was a while ago. Some questions: Is mod_webapp.so available in any of the rpms? If not, should I just remove references to it in server.xml and go with the ajp13 connector? What about mod_jk.so? It came with an earlier tomcat3.3 rpm. Is a current version still available in rpm? Why does the documentation refere to libexec/mod_*.so in a number of places? There is no libexec directory anywhere in my installation of apache. Neither is there a modules directory, but that doesn't stop the httpd.conf file referring to modules/mod_*.so. Are both modules and libexec translated in the bowels of apache? Should I replace all doumentation references to libexec/mod_*.so for unix systems with modules/mod_*.so? One of the references to libexec/mod_jk.so is in the section on Using ApacheConfig inthe AJP config page. The modJk attribute to the Listener element within the Host element is said to have this default. modJk (and , I think workersConfig) is on the apache side of the equation, isn't it? Yet modJk and workersConfig (default conf/jk/workers.properties) are supposedly referenced relative to CATALINA_HOME by default. This doesn't seem to make sense. What is the rationale for this? Peter -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://powerup.com.au/~pbwest Lord, to whom shall we go? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
