> -----Original Message----- > From: Henri Gomez > > Well I'd like to see the JK3 or whatever will name the new > module to be much more simpler and with less code. >
Bingo!
I'm trying over and over again to 'push' something like 'zero-config', not
depandant of any current container.
Just imagine a JK2+ as a 'virtual file system' with xml config for something
like 'fstab' named xxxconfig.xml.
Everthing else should be left to the container implementation.
So let's make something simple as apj_mount_uri(HOST, PORT, URI) that will
just register the uri.
Also I can live with something like apj_config_set("path/to/the/property",
"value"), so that all the config can came from the container itself.
But, the 'native file' config has to be XML (so that one can read the
server.xml directly or from the net), and there has to be no 'default
behaviour assumptions' unless specified as something like 'inherit
properties'.
So if someone wishes to make a apache module it will have to call
apj_mount_uri and few apj_config_set's, meaning that the all the 'high
level' directives will have to go in the module itself.
The major goal is to make something that could communicate to TC from
something simple as console app, or a web server.
For example:
int main()
{
f = apj_fopen("someserver:port/uri", "r;JSESSIONID=XX; and other
http vars");
while(apj_fread)... read the content from the file
}
Or
int main()
{
f = apj_fopen("someserver:port/uri", "w;HTTP_VARS..");
apj_write(f, the_post_data);
while (apj_read) ...
}
MT.
> For instance even jk2 inherited many code from jk and since
> jk was designed to be WebServer independant we couldn't use
> the full APIs of APR and Apache.
>
> That's why I think we should rewrite the jk/jk2 successor
> with Apache 2.x (2.0/2.1) in mind, using all the power of
> Apache HTTPD directive, including mapping discovery and so on.
>
> Ultimatly if we could produce a smaller module, we could then
> try to convince Apache 2 team to include it in Apache 2 distribution.
>
> > <mapping "*.jsp">
> > <balance>
> > <server name="1.2.3.1" factor="10%" />
> > <server name="1.2.3.2" factor="20%" />
> > <server name="1.2.3.3" factor="auto" />
> > <server name="1.2.3.4" factor="failover" />
> > </balance>
> > </mapping>
>
> I like the balanced worker definition but for an httpd.conf
> which more easy for Apache Admins, shouldn't it be :
>
> <WorkerDef>
> WorkerType ajp13
> WorkerName myworker1
> WorkerHost 1.2.3.1
> WorketPort 8009
> </WorkerDef>
>
> <WorkerDef>
> WorkerType ajp13
> WorkerName myworker2
> WorkerHost 1.2.3.2
> WorketPort 8009
> </WorkerDef>
>
> <WorkerDef>
> WorkerType ajp13
> WorkerName myworker3
> WorkerHost 1.2.3.3
> WorketPort 8009
> </WorkerDef>
>
> <WorkerDef>
> WorkerType ajp13
> WorkerName myworker4
> WorkerHost 1.2.3.4
> WorketPort 8009
> </WorkerDef>
>
> <WorkerDef>
> WorkerType lb
> WorkerName balanced
> WorkerEntry myworker1 10%
> WorkerEntry myworker2 20%
> WorkerEntry myworker3 auto
> WorkerEntry myworker4 failover
> </WorkerDef>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
