I can just say that jk2 seemed to be less responsive than jk, but that was mainly because I couldn't use the UNIX socket communication (didn't work), and because it's unreleased software without optimization.
IMO jk2 should be used as soon as it is final and supports JDK 1.4 NIO with unix sockets, or if you really need the inprocess stuff (kinda magic to me). Mike P.S.: My apologies to the jk2/apache/tomcat developers I may have offended by my original post, keep up the good work! However you should continue improving the documentation until it gives a definite guidance about which connectors are worth looking into for production usage. As long as people like me run into these problems, the documentation needs to be improved (I'm a quite experienced Java developer and used to searching the net for software documentation, but this was the first time I felt it necessary to actively ask a mailing list for advice. As for my own software I accept users' claims about bad documentation, because the fact they're complaining proves they're right). > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: Robert L Sowders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Oktober 2002 11:16 > An: Tomcat Users List > Betreff: Re: AW: jk2 uri mapping of SSL vhost > > > I've been using it for sometime now. It doesn't feel any slower that no > using it. No testing has been done. > > rls > > > > > Malachi de AElfweald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 10/08/2002 01:17 PM > Please respond to "Tomcat Users List" > > > To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: > Subject: Re: AW: jk2 uri mapping of SSL vhost > > is jk2 still slow with inprocess-JNI, cuz that is why I want to use it. > > Malachi > > > 10/8/2002 11:50:35 AM, "Michael Riess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >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]> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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]>
