So does jk_1.2.8, so, for new installs, why would I use it?
The overwhelming answers that I've gotten offline have been don't bother,
so that seems to be the best answer.
Thanks,
-Matt
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
> >If jk2 is abandoned, why would I use it over j
Matt wrote:
If jk2 is abandoned, why would I use it over jk_1.2.8?
Platform reasons? Feature reasons? Performance reaosns? Other?
Anyone?
Well, for one, it works and I have a ready to run config files.
Nix.
-
To unsubscribe, e
Thanks!
This is a new install, so that sums it up. I'll stick with jk_1.2.8 for
Tomcat 5.5.
Of course, the only hurdle now is an explicit example of exactly how to
ADD a docbase (say, C:\MYwebapps\MYexamples\) that Tomcat will see and not
404 or blank page, while still having $CATALINA_HOME/webap
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 02:57:48PM -0500, Matt wrote:
: If jk2 is abandoned, why would I use it over jk_1.2.8?
: Platform reasons? Feature reasons? Performance reaosns? Other?
: Anyone?
Depends on how you define "use" --
"continue using an existing JK2 install" -- either because you're in the
p
If jk2 is abandoned, why would I use it over jk_1.2.8?
Platform reasons? Feature reasons? Performance reaosns? Other?
Anyone?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've got tomcat 4.1.12 succesfully going with Apache 1.3.26 using
mod_jk. I notice that on the tomcat connectors page, it claims that
mod_jk is deprecated and that I should be using jk2 (coyote) instead.
I'm willing to give this a try, as I'm having some performance issues on
4.1.12 and I'm hop
