Thanks for the advice, but that doesn't work. I guess it's a bug, not a feature ;-). For now I will use mod_jk until jk2 is stable. jk2 seemed a bit slow anyway ... but it will definitely be faster than mod_jk as soon as the unix sockets and 1.4 NIO are working.
Mike -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: Mladen Turk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2002 20:38 An: 'Tomcat Users List'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RE: jk2 uri mapping of SSL vhost > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Riess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:34 PM > To: Tomcat Users List > Subject: AW: jk2 uri mapping of SSL vhost > > > Just for clarity: I have an webapp that should work with or > without SSL, so I need a way to map URIs to that webapp > without regard of the virtual host it comes from. > Alternatively, I could use two mappings for the two vhosts > (the default and the SSL host), but anyway: I would > appreciate for any suggestion for the right wk2.properties > definitions. > Then just use the default mapping [uri:/xyz/*] Without any host definitions. > Here's my guess #1 (doesn't work) > > [uri:192.168.42.42:*/xyz/*] > > and guess #2 (doesn't work either) > > [uri:192.168.42.42:80/xyz/*] > [uri:192.168.42.42:443/xyz/*] > > Tried using * instead of IP (you guessed right ... doesn't work). > > > Mike > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: Mladen Turk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2002 20:11 > An: 'Tomcat Users List'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: RE: jk2 uri mapping of SSL vhost > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Riess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:52 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: jk2 uri mapping of SSL vhost > > > > > > If anyone knows how to map requests from a virtual host > > (*:443) to a context ... I would be very thankful for any hint. > > > > I use mod_jk2 2.0.0 with Apache 2.0.43, mapping via [uri:/xyz/*] > > works, but mapping via [uri:*:443] doesn't do anything ... > > > > question: shouldn't [uri:/xyz/*] map uris from any virtual > host, not > > just the default one? > > If you declared host with > [uri:*:443] > Meaning any (virtual)hostname having port 443 then you have > to specify the mapping for such host. > > > Use the > [uri:*:443/xyz/*] > > Since you have declared host:port combination all the uri > mappings needs to be prefixed by that host:port. This > behavior is intentional cause you may wish not to map any > context on that host:port combination. > > > MT. > > > > -- > 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]> > > > -- 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]>
