> -----Original Message----- > From: Turner, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 5:11 AM > To: 'Tomcat Users List' > Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vikramjit Singh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 4:56 AM > > To: 'Tomcat Users List' > > Subject: RE: Tomcat standalone Versus Apache > > > > layer of code to go through before you hit them. Adding Apache to > > the mix also makes life a whole lot more complex, as you have > > already seen. > > I would disagree completely. The only complex thing is building the > connectors from source, in my experience. The ApacheConfig utility in > Tomcat makes using Apache in conjunction with Tomcat > relatively painless > once the connector is built/installed/working. > > > There's rarely a need to run Tomcat behind Apache. The exceptions > > I can think of are > > * if your site uses a mix of servlet/JSP and features only supported > > by Apache (e.g. PHP, mod_rewrite, etc.) > > * if you make heavy use of HTTPS; Apache's SSL C code is probably > > still faster than Tomcat's SSL Java code. > > * if you have an extremely popular site with tons of large static > > files (e.g. huge graphic files). > > > > If none of this is true, I recommend sticking to the stand-alone > > configurations. > > Again, I would disagree completely. There's lots more to > Apache than the > three things you've listed. All of it's modules, > significantly more robust > access control, easy integration with other dynamic > technologies besides > Java/JSP, well-known exploits and patches for same, and more.
Sure I can list some advantages : 1) Apache is faster & better when serving static content such as images 2) You get more error handling ability with apache (ie, when tomcat goes down for releases, etc, Apache gets a 500 error and can display a polite notice rather than nasty error pages) 3) You get all the other stuff that apache does: userdir, modspeling, cgi, ssi etc etc etc 4) https. i don't know if any certificate signing authorities do certs for java/tomcat (probably) but its very easy for mod_ssl or apache-ssl. 6) you can (theoretically) do sticky load balancing with mod_jk across multiple tomcat instances. Neither do i disapprove that apache+tomcat make a good combination, but tomcat stand alone is also stable. > > If Apache was "just serving static pages" you could write it in a lot > smaller package, like this webserver: > http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/ > or this one for HTTPS: > http://www.acme.com/software/mini_httpd/ (which, > according to benchmarks, runs at about 90% Apache speed). > > My point is that it's not just about serving static pages when you use > Apache, there are lots of other reasons to choose Apache + > Tomcat as opposed > to Tomcat alone. > > John Turner > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Vikram. > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
