Your proposal has some drawbacks, just some of them:
- You loose a common access log for all request to the site
- If your side needs authentication you have to do it twice.
You have to setup apache and tomcat to do the authentication
and the users will have to logon twice.
- You will lock out users who are behind a firewall that
denies HTTP request on other ports than 80 (that's quite
common)
- Quite some overhead for the development to set all links
right
- You can't use apache features for dynamic content.
(like mod_gzip, mod_rewrite, mod_)
> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Peter Mutsaers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2001 10:36
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: RE: Why Use apache
>
>
> W.r.t. static content: suppose you have a lot of static content and
> thus decide to run Apache next to Tomcat, then I wonder: why use the
> plugin?
>
> The plugin itself may be a bottleneck if not configured properbly, and
> may also be a source of bugs in itself.
>
> I would propose to run Apache on port 80, then run Tomcat stand-alone
> for dynamic content parallel on some other port (such as 8080).
>
> Static pages on Apache can give a link to tomcat, and tomcat gererated
> HTML documents can include static content such as images with an
> absolute URL pointing to the Apache server.
>
> It may also be more efficient, since dynamic content is returned to
> the client directly, and not via an extra rerouting through Apache.
>
> Just a thought for those that want to avoid the plugin.
>
> --
> Peter Mutsaers | D�bendorf | UNIX - Live free or die
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Switzerland | Sent via FreeBSD 4.3-stable
>
