Bill Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "liug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > b24kvg$7ku$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b24kvg$7ku$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> mod_jk2 (tomcat 4.1.18) seems to compile fine with apache13, >> but only "mod_jk2.so" is generated. There is no "libjkjni.so". >> Is that a problem? Is "libjkjni.so" really needed? The mod_jk2 >> works fine without it in my test. >> >> BTW, what is this "jni" thing in the jk2 connector? I understand >> we already have TCP/IP Socket and Unix domain Socket. is "jni" >> a third connection type? What's the benefit?
> With the JNI channel, Apache and Tomcat share the same memory space. So the speaking of "memory", I noticed both jk2.properties and workers2.properties have a reference to a shm file, should they point to the same file? Thanks! frank > cost of passing off the data between the two should be cheaper (at least in > theory). > There are people on the list that love using JNI with Apache 1.3. I've > never understood why, so I'll let them answer. As I understand it, the JNI > channel works best with a multi-threaded server like IIS, iPlanet, or Apache > 2 (with the 'worker' MPM). As I said before, I don't see the advantages to > using it with a 'pre-fork' server like Apache 1.3. >> >> Thanks! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
