JK runnin' fine over here. <evil grin> Sorry...couldn't resist. :)
John > -----Original Message----- > From: liug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: mod_jk2 vs. the others > > > > compile of mod_jk2 is not an issue. it is pretty straight forward. > but whether you can config and make it work is another story :) > If you are one of those lucky Microsoft Windows user, I do > see some success posts. On Unix, no one got JNI in process > working with mod_jk2 (isn't that one of the main reason you > want to use mod_jk2 over mod_jk?) You may be able to get > Unix domain socket working if you follow Paul's suggestion: > The work-around for that was to put all the jar files from > $TOMCAT/server/lib in $TOMCAT/commons/lib -- this by-passes > the class loader > hierarchy (defeating the purpose of the classloader > hierarchy's security > mechanisms) but it allows the unix domain sockets to work. > The problem exists since earlier versions of 4.1.x. > This makes me wondering if mod_jk2 is being actively worked on. > > frank > > > Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've got mod_jk working, not mod_jk2. But I did finally get mod_jk2 > > compiled (between myself and another). I asked the other > guy to take notes > > so we could repeat it with a > > howto in mind, but he hasn't given the notes to me yet. > > > If someone has a "sample" mod_jk2 configuration using a > vanilla apache2.x > > and tomcat4.x then I can add that to the end of it. When I > get it that is. > > > The old version of mod_jk I was able to get to compile by > just making a > > minor code tweak, but with the new ant build I'm not sure > where it's at. I > > may even have it compiled, but I haven't (to be completely > honest) looked. > > Been too busy with work to play lately. > > > --mikej > > -=----- > > mike jackson > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Turner, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:23 AM > >> To: 'Tomcat Users List' > >> Subject: RE: mod_jk2 vs. the others (was: mod_webapp random error) > >> > >> > >> > >> If you've got it working, stick with it, and while you're at it, > >> how about a > >> config HOWTO? Lots of JK2 problems recently on the list. ;) > >> > >> John > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Mike Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:18 PM > >> > To: Tomcat Users List > >> > Subject: RE: mod_jk2 vs. the others (was: mod_webapp > random error) > >> > > >> > > >> > Hmm, ok, seems like the consensus is to use mod_jk for now. > >> > Now I'll just > >> > have to get that to compile under unixware (not the easiest > >> > thing in the > >> > world). > >> > > >> > Also, on a somewhat related thought, is there anyone else out > >> > there running > >> > apache+tomcat on unixware? I'd like to compare problems from > >> > time to time. > >> > > >> > --mikej > >> > -=----- > >> > mike jackson > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Turner, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:13 AM > >> > > To: 'Tomcat Users List' > >> > > Subject: RE: mod_jk2 vs. the others (was: mod_webapp > random error) > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > JK2 is technically best with Apache 2 because of the > pre-fork issue. > >> > > > >> > > JK works with both Apache 1.3 and 2. > >> > > > >> > > John > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > From: Mike Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:06 PM > >> > > > To: Tomcat Users List > >> > > > Subject: RE: mod_jk2 vs. the others (was: mod_webapp > random error) > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Should I be using mod_jk with apache 2.x? I thought > that mod_jk2 > >> > > > was for apache 2.x mostly, and that mod_jk was > geared more towards > >> > > > use with apache 1.3.x. > >> > > > > >> > > > For that matter I've had all sorts of fun getting > mod_jk2 to work, > >> > > > but mod_jk is easy... > >> > > > > >> > > > --mikej > >> > > > -=----- > >> > > > mike jackson > >> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > >> > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > > From: Turner, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:54 AM > >> > > > > To: 'Tomcat Users List' > >> > > > > Subject: RE: mod_jk2 vs. the others (was: mod_webapp > >> > random error) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I wouldn't use mod_webapp at all. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > JK (mod_jk) has lots of features over mod_webapp: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > - ability to load balance > >> > > > > - ability to separate static content from dynamic content > >> > > > > - and more, search the archives, this is a FAQ > >> > > > > > >> > > > > JK2 is the "newer" version of JK. It's where the dev team > >> > > > is focusing its > >> > > > > efforts. So, going forward, the recommended > choices are mod_jk > >> > > > > and mod_jk2. > >> > > > > Which you use is up to you. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > John > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > > > From: Diego Algorta Casamayou > >> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:50 PM > >> > > > > > To: Tomcat Users List > >> > > > > > Subject: mod_jk2 vs. the others (was: mod_webapp > random error) > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Any experience with mod_jk2? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Does it everything mod_jk and mod_webapp can do? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > If it's newer, why should I use mod_jk or > mod_webapp instead > >> > > > > > of mod_jk2? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > > > > From: "Chris Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > > > To: "Tomcat Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:56 PM > >> > > > > > Subject: Re: mod_webapp random error > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi, > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I've never had this problem with mod_webapp, it sounds > >> > > > very strange. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If you possibly can, switch to mod_jk. I think > I'm right in > >> > > > > > saying that > >> > > > > > most > >> > > > > > > people consider mod_webapp as hackish, and certainly > >> > > > > > inferior to jk/jk2. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I find it useful because it is so well documented I can > >> > > > > > extend it with > >> > > > > > very > >> > > > > > > little effort, but it may not be suited to a production > >> > > > environment. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > C.Davies > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Quoting Diego Algorta Casamayou > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Yes, it's listening on port 8008. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The thing is that it WORKS OK "almost > everytime" :-/ BUT, > >> > > > > > sometimes and > >> > > > > > > > without apparent reason it stops working and > I have to > >> > > > > > restart apache > >> > > > > > > > and > >> > > > > > > > tomcat to get it working again. SOMETIMES it > works just > >> > > > > > waiting about 10 > >> > > > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > > 15 seconds and reloading the page. It's > really annoying > >> > > > > > because it's a > >> > > > > > > > random behavior. Sometimes I can reproduce > the error when > >> > > > > > I reppeatidly > >> > > > > > > > and > >> > > > > > > > quickly (sure bad english writing) reload the page. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This is my server.xml file (real IP replaced with > >> > > > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Bytes > >> > > > > > > > DAC > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > >> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > >> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
