I don't know about anyone else, but when reading this from the JK/JK2 page, I assumed that JK2 was a better solution since I am trying to use JDK1.4 and InProcess-JNI...
>> What's the difference between JK and JK2 ? >> >> JK2 is a refactoring of JK and is much more powerfull. >> >> Even if it works with Apache 1.3, JK2 has been developed with Apache 2.0 in mind, >and is better >> suited for multi-threaded servers like IIS, NES/iPlanet. It can also be embeded in >other >> applications and used from java. >> >> JK2 improves the modularity and has a better separation between protocol and >physical layer. As such >> JK2 support fast unix-socket, and could be extended to support others >communications channels. It is >> better suited for JNI and may use (in a future version) JDK 1.4 NIO. >> >> There is additional support for monitoring, similar with JMX in java. A module >similar with >> mod_status is provided, and additional adapters can be used to interface and >provide status and >> runtime configuration. . >> >> The configuration has been changed to follow the component models. Multiple >configuration sources >> can be supported ( in additon to file ) providing better integration with the >embeding application. >> The config layer uses the management layer APIs and it can support persistence for >changes done via >> runtime configuration. >> >> Another feature is the JNI mode. Jk2 can be used as a JNI library and provide >access to native >> features to java. For example it provides access to shared memory ( used for config >and monitoring >> in a multiprocess environment ), unix domain sockets. It can also provide access to >signals, chuid, >> win registry. All using the same communication mechansim, and supporting both >in-process and out-of >> process modes. >> 10/7/2002 7:45:24 AM, "Turner, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Yes, as has been stated several times in the past by people involved with >connector development, JK is production ready, JK2 should be considered >beta. > >JK works fine, not sure why it is so bad to use. > >John > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Catalin Constantin [mailto:catalin@;cabanova.ro] >> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:46 AM >> To: Tomcat Users List >> Subject: Re: JK2 Installation >> >> >> so you suggest we should use >> mod_jk instead ! >> >> too bad ! >> >> Catalin >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Turner, John >> To: 'Tomcat Users List' >> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:42 PM >> Subject: RE: JK2 Installation >> >> >> >> Because it is still in development. >> >> John >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Catalin Constantin [mailto:catalin@;cabanova.ro] >> > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:58 AM >> > To: Tomcat Users List >> > Subject: Re: JK2 Installation >> > >> > >> > why is this mod_jk2 so bad documented ? >> > >> > Catalin >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: Christian Gothe >> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 3:46 PM >> > Subject: JK2 Installation >> > >> > >> > Hi! >> > >> > I'm looking for informations how to install JK2 for Apache. On >> > >> > http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/tomcat-4.1-doc/jk2/jk2/config >> > web.html >> > is nothing that can help me, because it is incomplete. >> > >> > Any ideas? >> > >> > Thank you, >> > Christian >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> > <mailto:tomcat-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: >> > <mailto:tomcat-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> >> > >> > >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ><mailto:tomcat-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: ><mailto:tomcat-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
