Graham Leggett wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
I don't think that it is necessary for a mod_ajp to be included inside the
mod_proxy, although they are sharing some common concepts.
I think it's very necessary - sharing those common concepts ultimately makes for doing things in a consistent way. It makes a big difference to the usability of httpd.
Right now proxy is able to talk HTTP and FTP (and CONNECT, but it's a special case). It makes the most sense for AJP to be added to these three protocols, as there is already an established way to do this.
Ok, I was wrong. Multiple protocol support is sometimes usefull :-), http and ftp are a good example of that. It wasn't in mod_jk.
But I still think we should start with using mod_proxy with http protocol, and add the missing load balancing and extra info - if we are not happy with the performance and we need a small boost, we could also add ajp.
Costin
Consistency is very important.
Having load
balancer on top of mod_proxy would be a nice feature, but the main purpose
for them is different.
Different to what? Load balancing is load balancing, whether the backend protocol is HTTP, AJP or FTP.
I see no point on making significant effort in a feature that can only be used for one protocol, that's a huge waste of an opportunity to solve the load balancing problems of backends other than tomcat.
The purpose of mod_ajp is to communicate with the (one or more of them in a
cluster) application servers using ajp13+ protocol; simple as that. Proxy
module has a conceptually different approach, and it is meant to be used for
different purposes.
I rewrote proxy, so I know - proxy has the exact same conceptual approach and is used for the exact same purposes. Proxy allows you to communicate with (one or more in a cluster) applications servers using HTTP or FTP. The only difference is the protocol.
The development of proxy_ajp could see the development of modules like proxy_loadbalance or proxy_sticky, which have general application outside of the AJP protocol.
Just rewriting mod_ajp for v2.0 isn't anything different to what exists now, so I don't see the point.
Regards, Graham --
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
