On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Turner, John wrote: > > I think you're overthinking it. Tomcat != Apache. Webapps != Document > Roots.
webapps are like document roots. That's my point. The only way you can do a JkMount is by giving a worker, and the worker can only only serve from a webapp based on the host and directory path in the uri. Apache lets you do things like map a.myhost.com to /dir-for-dynamic-virt-hosts/a, and JServ can handle it, but tomcat can't do things like that, and it can't handle Alias directives either. For example to have two hosts serve the same webapp I had to give both <Host> elements the same appBase paramater. Apache is much more flexible and lets you use the ServerAlias directive. > > Tomcat needs to do what it needs to do because a web app is more than just a > directory that has content in it. > Right, but sometimes you might want to lump multiple things into one webapp. > You can't map a.myhost.com to /examples/a and b.myhost.com to examples/b for > a very good reason. There's no such thing as /examples/a and /examples/b. > If you want that you setup /examples-a and /examples-b, which you CAN do > with the auto-deploy function. > Which is my point. Using auto-deply is not the same thing as simply creating a directory and putting files in it. Apache has the dynamic virtual host feature for a reason. Using auto-deply requires that all your content be under directories, which doesn't look as nice as having a hostname. name.host.com is better than host.com/name > Don't make Apache = Tomcat...they're completely different, not just in name > and codebase, but also in purpose, intent, and design. > > On that note, anyone who tries to do power hosting with Tomcat in a single > instance is being foolish, but that's my own personal opinion. My > production servers are using Jserv, but I wouldn't think of using a single > Tomcat instance for all of my virtual hosts. Doesn't make any sense at all. If you mean one webapp, I don't want to either, but there are some related virtual hosts that I do want lumped together. > >From a user standpoint, if I was paying $30 a month or whatever for hosting, > and my ISP told me that they couldn't restart my application because it > would effect others, or that my application was going to be down because > someone else's application was causing problems, I'd be pretty upset. From > that perspective, Tomcat does virtual hosting just fine, using separate > instances, provided you have the resources. That is one of the reasons we're moving to Tomcat, so we can restart one of our webapps w/o restarting the others. But we have to work around the dynamic virtual host issue. Doesn't it bother you that JServ, that ancient code, has some functionality that tomcat doesn't? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
