Thanks for the tips. I believe the site will be using SSL at some point so that may be a reason to use Apache. But for the time being, I suppose I might as well use Tomcat standalone knowing that I can just "flip a switch" (well, a couple switches) to get Apache back in there.
--- Peter Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am using Apache2, jk2 and Tomcat5 but I do so > because I want to > offload the SSL and compression onto a first tier > leaving the second > just to generate the content. I also use the first > tier for uri > rewriting using mod_rewrite. > > If you don't need uri rewriting I would consider > using Tomcat standalone > as the performance is likely to be comparable but > the reduced admin by > removing Apache and jk would be a big benefit. Why > have more steps that > can go wrong? More to debug when it does? > > To answer the questions from your first email. The > images will be being > returned from Apache, remember that an image is a > separate request. I > will qualify this by stating that any dynamically > generated images will > be returned by Tomcat. > > Regarding the directory setup ... it is whatever > works best for you. I > personally do the following: > Apache Content -> /sites/static/<site name>/....... > Tomcat Content -> /sites/webapps/<site name>/.... > > This means that all of the Tomcat content is outside > the realm of Apache > and thus security concerns are reduced. > > my 2c, > > PJ > > footh wrote: > > >I've read the FAQ on the topic of whether to go > >through Apache or just use Tomcat stand-alone and > >frankly, it seemed inconclusive. Then I did a > search > >and it seemed the general consensus was to use > Tomcat > >stand-alone for development enviroments and Apache > for > >production. > > > >Really, that's all I went by. I figured using > Apache, > >Tomcat and mod_jk was the more robust solution and > >better suited for the long haul. More and more > >features will likely be added to this site so I > need > >to be forward thinking. > > > >--- Parsons Technical Services > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>Unless you have a reason, why not let Tomcat do it > >>all? > >> > >>Doug > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "footh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:13 PM > >>Subject: Apache, Tomcat and mod_jk2 - question > about > >>layout > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>After going through all the documentation, I have > >>>gotten mod_jk2 to forward jsp requests to Tomcat. > > >>>However, I have a question about the layout... > >>> > >>>Essentially, my site will be .html pages with > some > >>>occasional .jsp pages (it will likely change in > >>> > >>> > >>the > >> > >> > >>>future to all .jsp/servlets, but for now that's > >>> > >>> > >>the > >> > >> > >>>way it is). Right now, I have the Apache > >>> > >>> > >>DocumentRoot > >> > >> > >>>pointing to the directory containing the site and > >>> > >>> > >>also > >> > >> > >>>I have a Tomcat Context with a blank path > property > >>> > >>> > >>and > >> > >> > >>>docBase property pointing to the same site > >>> > >>> > >>directory. > >> > >> > >>>So, basically, I can browse the site by going to > >>>http://localhost:8080 using Tomcat in addition to > >>> > >>> > >>the > >> > >> > >>>standard http://localhost address (through > >>> > >>> > >>Apache). > >> > >> > >>>And, with mod_jk2 working, I can also hit > >>>http://localhost/xyz.jsp and have a .jsp page > >>> > >>> > >>execute > >> > >> > >>>correctly. > >>> > >>>So, my question is, is this the correct way to > >>>configure this kind of web site? When .jsp pages > >>> > >>> > >>are > >> > >> > >>>hit, are the images actually being loaded by > >>> > >>> > >>Apache or > >> > >> > >>>by Tomcat? > >>> > >>>A problem I've discovered is that if I need to > use > >>> > >>> > >>a > >> > >> > >>>web.xml file in the WEB-INF directory, I can > >>> > >>> > >>actually > >> > >> > >>>browse to the WEB-INF directory when hitting the > >>> > >>> > >>site > >> > >> > >>>through port 80 (Apache). Obviously, this is not > >>> > >>> > >>a > >> > >> > >>>good idea so I am thinking there is probably a > >>> > >>> > >>better > >> > >> > >>>way to set this site up. Any ideas? > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>> > >>>JF > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
