Now it's my turn to reply to quickly :) It seems the 8009 is on the Tomcat side so it shouldn't matter how many workers are talking to it from JK. Anyways, to clarify my situation, I don't NEED all the Apache hosts to talk to a single Tomcat host, I just don't NEED them to be different Tomcat hosts so, really, whichever way works I'll set it up that way.
Basically, I have 4 sites which need to talk to apps running under Tomcat, but how the apps react will primarily be handled by the user's roles after they log in. > -----Original Message----- > From: Madere, Colin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 3:11 PM > To: 'Tomcat Users List' > Subject: RE: JK - warning/question about naming workers > > 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]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
