"liug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message b2bbic$4bj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b2bbic$4bj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > 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?
Urm, yes. It's used for inter-process communication. > > 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]
