OK, let's be honest if we're going to post. I certainly did not say "JK2 is in beta, not to be trusted, use something else, read the list, don't complain about the documentation, etc etc"
I _did_ say JK2 is "beta". That has different meanings to different people. I'm primarily a sys-admin in charge of production servers. If someone (that someone being from the dev or release team) posts that JK2 should be considered "beta", that means "not fit for production yet, but probably OK for development if you don't mind a few bugs". That's me. To others, "beta" may mean something entirely different. To each, his/her own, make your own decisions. JServ and JK have been working great for me, on high-traffic, resource-intensive, production sites. I see no reason to jump on the JK2 bandwagon until the codebase is more stable. Again, that's me, and perhaps the latest version (2.0.1) is that codebase, I have no way of knowing without testing it myself and seeing what other people do with it. Latest/greatest isn't always the wisest. That said, use whatever you want. RE: the documentation, you are welcome to complain. I only posted the replies that I posted in defense of those people on the list who have gone above and beyond to contribute to the documentation effort, beyond that of the dev team. These people have spent a lot of time working on their documents, and have posted the URLs to the list many times. Robert Sowders has regularly posted a full list of HOWTOs for various platforms and versions to supplement the "official" documentation. These posts can be found in a search. If you want to complain, that's cool, but your complaints will get a lot more attention if you contribute to the effort. It's your choice. Now that we've put my comments and posts back into their correct context, let's get back to your questions (inline): > From: Malachi de AElfweald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 3:57 PM > To: Turner, John; Short, Dave; tomcat-list > Subject: Re: RE: JK2 Installation > > 1) I can't figure out how to get mod_jk2 to build on FreeBSD > (using linux-sun-jdk14 and Apache2.0.42 and Tomcat 4.1.12). > In the last 4 days, I > somehow built mod_jk2.so once, > but then it complained about pthreads... I figured out that I > need to add "-pthread" > to the CC flags.... but now it won't build the .so files -- > even if it says it does, they > aren't there. I've deleted your other posts from my InBox because I don't have access to a FreeBSD machine at this time, even though I love FreeBSD and think its a great OS. If you want to post the errors again, I will try to help. Give me access to a FreeBSD machine, and I can probably get a build for you, but no promises. > 2) What is the correct way to use the inprocess-jni? None of > the examples use that. If it's not in the docs, your best option is to subscribe to tomcat-dev, NOT tomcat-user, and post your questions there. JK2 is in active development, if you are using a feature that isn't available in the docs, the BEST place to ask your question is to ask it where the DEVELOPERS are, and that is tomcat-dev. > > 3) What is the correct way to do the worker2.properties when > dealing with Apache VirtualHosts? > RTFS (read the friendly source). Others have posted in the past how things work for various portions of connectors, including JK, not just JK2, because they read the source code. That said, it seems pretty self-explanatory to me based on the HOWTOs that have been posted, and I don't even use JK2: # define the worker [ajp13:localhost:8009] channel=channel.un:/usr/local/tomcat/work/jk2.socket # To use the TCP/IP socket instead, just comment out the above # line, and uncomment the one below #channel=channel.socket:localhost:8009 # Announce a "status" worker [status:status] # Uri mapping [uri:/examples/*] #worker=ajp13:localhost:8009 worker=ajp13:/usr/local/tomcat/work/jk2.socket Note the places where it says "localhost". The first place I would start, if I was using JK2, would be to replace "localhost" with the FQDN of the virtual host, and see what happened. But that's me. > Oh, and by the way, as to John's question about why I am > using JK2... The JK/JK2 documentation > states that it is designed for Apache2, might support JDK 1.4 > NIO at some point, and is better > at JNI -- which I am doing all of those things. That's fine, I am not a cop. It doesn't make a difference to me what you use, except that in my opinion, it seems like wasted time and effort banging your head trying to figure something out that may not even have a solution yet because the guy writing the code hasn't even written it. The statement everyone quotes about "why to use JK2" is a GOAL, not a shipped specification sheet...it's what the developers WANT JK2 to be, not necessarily what it is today. But, it's your time and effort, so bang away. Or, for that matter, jump into the dev effort and write the code if you have a need for it quicker than what the rest of the team can produce (same goes for docs). Have a great day. John -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
