>Craig,
>
>I assume I'm the person interested in porting mod_jk to TC 4
>(if there's anyone else, please get in touch with me ;-).
And you may have also to ports patch from 3.2/3.3 to 4.0 ;-)
>Thank you for clarifying the issue about the difference
>between the 2.2 and 2.3 specs -- I hadn't realized that.
>
>I do have a question: how would you feel about including
>mod_jk in TC 4 before it became totally 2.3 compliant? In
>other words, if I managed to write ajp13 and/or ajp12
>connectors for TC 4, how would you feel about that being
>committed to cvs immediately, so that people could start using
>it (and using TC with various web servers), *before* making
>the extensive additions which would be necessary to bring it
>into 2.3 compliance?
+1
>I ask this because I am honestly not sure how much time I can
>devote to the project -- I am hoping to write the ajp13
>connector, but I am not sure if I will have the time to
>rewrite all the C code (something I'm not as expert at) to
>bring mod_jk into 2.3 compliance. If I can only offer the
>code for the current ajp13, would that be something you would
>be comfortable with merging into the TC 4 codebase?
You'll have to play with Apache 1.3 and 2.0 Api and that's another story.
That's an important point since if there is resource for java stuff in
TC 3.x and 4.x, port to Apache 1.3 and even harder (since newer) for Apache
2.0
see less people involved (Costin / Pier)
That's why I think we must have for now a common connector to both 3.x and
4.x
architectures. mod_jk allready support load-balancing and that's a big +.
It's architecture will allow to add extensions messages to add 2.3
functionnality.
Regards
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
