Well it would make sense that all could use 8009 if they are different hosts on different IPs, but depending on how the port is used that may not work if you want to use a single Tomcat host for multiple Apache hosts.
That is my situation I'm trying to get working. site1 -> worker.site1 -> tomcat1 (this works, obviously) site2 -> worker.site? -> tomcat1 site3 -> worker.site? -> tomcat1 Any suggestions on this appreciated. I don't want it to "just work", I want to be sure I know why it works and that it's not going to blow up when it goes to production. Thanks for the super-fast feedback, John. > -----Original Message----- > From: Turner, John [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 2:21 PM > To: 'Tomcat Users List' > Subject: RE: JK - warning/question about naming workers > > > Actually, I posted too soon. After I thought about it, I realized that I > haven't really beat that test instance up any, I've been focusing on one > particular webapp and one particular client/URL. > > I did end up having to add another entry to workers.properties for a > second > hostname, though as it stands now it looks like the various workers can > all > use port 8009. I will have to investigate further. > > I apologize for the previously posted misinformation that said one worker > definition could handle multiple vhosts. > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Turner, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 2:53 PM > > To: 'Tomcat Users List' > > Subject: RE: JK - warning/question about naming workers > > > > > > > > As far as I know, the "host" parameter in workers.properties > > is the lcoation > > of the Tomcat server...it has nothing to do with the hostname > > used in the > > URL. > > > > If you had more than one Host in server.xml, you would put an > > ApacheConfig > > Listener in there for each one. > > > > I have this setup in my 4.1.12 test instance right now. > > There are multiple > > Hosts in server.xml, each with one or more Contexts. > > Workers.properties > > only has one worker defined, and the mod_jk.conf file generated by > > ApacheConfig has multiple Apache VirtualHosts defined. > > > > HTH > > > > John > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Madere, Colin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 2:47 PM > > > To: 'Tomcat Users List' > > > Subject: JK - warning/question about naming workers > > > > > > > > > I just fought with a problem for quite a while and thought > > I'd share a > > > caution and ask a question. > > > > > > The mod_jk.conf auto-generated by Tomcat assumes that your > > > worker for the > > > /examples (and other default apps in Tomcat) is named > > > "ajp13". If you name > > > it anything else you'll get a 500 error since JK drops the > > > request due to no > > > valid worker being found. You MUST name a worker "ajp13" for > > > those things > > > to work. > > > > > > This brings up a question for me, how does Tomcat decide to > > > map apps to > > > workers to auto-generate mod_jk.conf correctly? Does it > > > assume that you > > > will have all contexts that you want to map to a worker under > > > a single host? > > > If so, doesn't this imply that you can't map multiple workers > > > to the same > > > host (if Tomcat keys off the host)? Am I off in left-field? > > > In all the > > > documentation I've sought out did I miss the explanation of > > > this somewhere? > > > > > > Thanks again to those vigilant responders on this list! > > > > > > Colin > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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]>
