Hi Costin,
I think another point of confusion is what future mod_jk is going to have.
I�ve read a lot about the future of this connector lately and it appears
that a lot of work is taking place right now in order to get mod_jk2 running
stable and to improve the configuration.
On the other hand I�ve also heard that mod_webapp is to play the major role
in the future, possibly replacing mod_jk one day.
I can�t imagine the latter happening because otherwise all the work would be
a waste of time, but could you perhaps share your thoughts on the future of
mod_jk/mod_jk2.
Thanks
Michael Delamere
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: Apache 2, Tomcat 4 and mod_jk2
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Simon Stewart wrote:
>
> > The workers can be called anything you want them to be (for example, I
> > use "tomcat1") What tends to happen is that people take their
> > (working) apache 1.3.x + mod_jk combo and use the same config files
> > with apache 2.x and mod_jk2.
>
> Well... I was thinking of ways to disable this 'feature'...
> Some feedback on this would be great.
>
> First, I am hoping to slowly deprecate the configuration
> in terms of 'workers'.
>
> What you should configure is channels. The names can be
> anything, but URL-style constructors are much cleaner
> ( and may become 'required' ).
>
> Example:
>
> channel.socket:localhost:8009
> channel.apr:${server_home}/work/unix.socket
> channel.jni:
>
> Each channel will be associated with a worker automatically,
> using ajp13:localhost:8009, etc.
>
>
> In addition, now all channels are automatically added to
> the default worker ( which is now the 'lb' worker ).
> So if you define one or many channels, and set the
> worker to lb ( without any other special configuration )
> you'll get everything working (I hope ) easier.
>
>
> Going through the lb has a minimal overhead, but greatly
> simplify things and enables many other things.
>
> There is a second change ( not yet implemented, but
> high on the list ) in the 'lb' configuration. Instead
> of 'workers' we can use 'groups' and 'instances'.
>
> An 'instance' ( the name is not yet clear ) is a VM running
> tomcat ( coresponds to the jvmRoute - used for sessions ).
> A 'group' is an lb worker forwarding to multiple tomcats.
>
> What I would recommend for configuration is mapping all
> webapps to a 'group' ( even if you have a single tomcat
> instance ). If you later add more tomcats you'll have
> minimal changes ( hopefully - none !).
>
> There are 2 major advanced use cases:
> - a pool of tomcats running the same apps. That'll
> be the easiest to configure, the default (lb) worker
> will just do that.
>
> - different pools of tomcats, each with different
> apps. That's where groups can help.
>
> The goal is of course to have the minimal ammount of
> work - the worker and lb configuration can be greatly
> automated ( we're trying to get each tomcat to
> register automatically when it starts with jk ).
>
> What do you think ? The last part is still work in
> progress, and all of this would benefit a lot from
> your feedback.
>
> Costin
>
>
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 10:09:42AM -0400, Anthony W. Marino wrote:
> > > The example for "mod_jk2" shows a worker's config for "AJP13" but I
thoug=
> > > ht=20
> > > that "jk2" is "AJP14"?
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > >
> > > > Thanks to Michael Delamere and Pascal Forget, I'm happy to shout out
> > > > that there's a HOWTO for setting up Apache 2, mod_jk2 and Tomcat on
> > > > Linux (and therefore probably other UNIX flavours)
> > > >
> > > > It's linked from http://www.pubbitch.org/jboss
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Troubles with the list: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Troubles with the list: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
