Just one more thought on the matter, for me tonight: I've deployed an app using Tomcat Standalone (www.hotel.us) and while there have been several issues that were a little less than obvious, I have found a solution to every single one of them and am overall pretty satisfied with tomcat. but this one little thing would force me to have to go to apache. IMHO, it would be a shame to not be able to use the product for this one little reason.
Neal -----Original Message----- From: neal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:18 PM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: RE: RewriteRules and Standalone Tomcat Well, a few things come to mind. 1. A comparison was made - using tomcat as a web server is like racing a mac truck. Well, for someone new to tomcat and apache (I just arrived from microsoft/iis land) the correct usage pattern was less than obvious ... I just knew that most people used tomcat/apache. I could have never anticipated this sort of issue. If this sort of issue is defended by the community (302s etc) then there should be a blatant disclaimer when downloading the standalone that it is not intended for production use. 2. As to teh chicken and egg analogy - that's a good point - "does theory or an unfortunate reality dictate the direction of the product?" I guess I would defer to point #1. If the product is not going to address the very real issues of production use, it should make it clear to users that it is not indended for production use. Granted the ideal is to sluff off such petty and rediculous issues put forth by the search engine defenses, but at the end of that argument the issue still exists as does the sobering fact that this will be a significant problem for anyone who chooses to deploy a commercial application using the product. neal -----Original Message----- From: Turner, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:27 PM To: 'Tomcat Users List' Subject: RE: RewriteRules and Standalone Tomcat Sounds like the makings of a good debate, and a classic "chicken and egg" problem. Does Tomcat submit to how some search engines work, even if there are reasons not to do so, or do search engines accept 302 behavior? Do ALL search engines disregard 302s? Think about it...search engines probably disregard 302s because of abusive behavior in the past from a minority of web site owners. Should that dictate the design of a major software application? John -----Original Message----- From: neal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 9:29 PM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: RE: RewriteRules and Standalone Tomcat Hmm. But the fact still remains that Tomcat Standalone will not be a commercially viable http server on its own if it can't display a welcome page without redirecting to the page. Dispite all of Tomcat's other abilities, not having this ability is like shooting the standalone notion in the foot. Because of the search engine spidering implications of starting off with a 302 redirect, a Tomcat-standalone-hosted website will likley never place well in most major search engines. So aside from theory ... this is not a good "feature", certainly not a viable one. :( Neal -----Original Message----- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 6:07 PM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: RE: RewriteRules and Standalone Tomcat On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Turner, John wrote: > Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:33:50 -0500 > From: "Turner, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Tomcat Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: 'Tomcat Users List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: RewriteRules and Standalone Tomcat > > > No problem, glad to help. Remember, Tomcat is not a HTTP server. It > supports HTTP as a matter of convenience. You can run Tomcat all day > long without a HTTP or HTTPS connector, and as far as I know, there is > nothing in > the spec that says Tomcat has to meet certain requirements for HTTP or > HTTPS. CoyoteConnector is HTTP/1.1 compliant, but again, that's more > for convenience and compatibility than a design requirement. > Auoting from Servlet Specification, Version 2.3, Section 1.2: All servlet containers must support HTTP as a protocol for requests and responses, but additional request/response based protocols (such as HTTPS (HTTP over SSL) may be supported. The minimum required version of the HTTP specification that a container must implement is HTTP/1.0. It is strongly suggested that containers implement the HTTP/1.1 specification as well. So, a servlet container (which is either Tomcat standalone or Tomcat+Apache) *must* support HTTP. > I'm sure the folks on tomcat-dev could shed some more light on it. > Of course, this statement does nothing to resolve the issue of what the right welcome file behavior is -- the HTTP spec is silent about that :-). > John Craig -- 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]> --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002 -- 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]>
