Hi Henri,
Never mind. I just saw this post...
-------------
> It's no more true with the latest mod_jk/ajp13 found in
> TC 3.3 cvs. I commited two patches in ajp13 worker (C side)
> which fixes that.
>
> But mod_jk in TC 3.2 != mod_jk in TC 3.3 since some fixes
> are delicate and Marc ask us to avoid touching sensible
> code in TC 3.2.x. Even if I'm convident with the ajp13 worker
> patch we need many testers to put it back in TC 3.2.
-------------
Thanks,
--jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Kilbride" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: apj12 or apj13 on 3.2.2?
> Then why not move the 3.3 mod_jk code into 3.2.x, if it's more mature?
>
> Thanks,
> --jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 1:33 PM
> Subject: RE: apj12 or apj13 on 3.2.2?
>
>
> > >From what I've gathered off this list and the dev list, ajp13
> > >maintains open
> > >socket connections with Apache and reuses them, instead of closing them
> > >after each request like ajp12. So, ajp13 was designed to be
> > >faster and more
> > >scaleable. However, if you use ajp13, any time you restart
> > >Tomcat you must
> > >restart Apache, too.
> >
> > >I've also heard that the ajp13 code in the 3.3 milestone
> > >releases is more
> > >mature than the ajp13 code in the 3.2.x tree. Since the 3.3 mod_jk is
> > >compatible with 3.2.x, I'll probably give that a try. I
> > >believe the 3.2.x
> > >mod_jk has several *issues* that probably won't be cleaned up
> > >until the 3.3
> > >release.
> >
> > The features in 3.3 mod_jk are not dependant on Tomcat 3.3.
> > It's only native code !
> >
> > >Thanks,
> > >--jeff
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Hunter Hillegas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: "Tomcat User List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 11:07 AM
> > >Subject: apj12 or apj13 on 3.2.2?
> > >
> > >
> > >> With 3.2.1 I couldn't use apj12 because I needed to do file uploads
> > >through
> > >> Apache and it just didn't work. I see that bug has been
> > >fixed in 3.2.2.
> > >>
> > >> I'm wondering if under 3.2.2, which protocol is
> > >faster/scales better for a
> > >> popular site?
> > >>
> > >> Any input is appreciated.
> > >>
> > >> Hunter
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
