Realistically, I hate using JNI (I'm a purist). I am considering using the jk2 with the jni just to speed it up... sockets add an extra level of redirection.
On the flip side, I got bored and wrote an NIO server the other night. It is pretty fast, so I think I would be more likely to go the NIO route than the JNI route, given the option. Malachi 10/9/2002 2:47:21 AM, "Michael Riess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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]> > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
