Except you don't 'serve' them from that directory, you invoke them, right? >From your document here: http://www.johnturner.com/howto/mod_jk_conf.html
<snip> JkMount /examples/jsp/security/protected/j_security_check ajp13 JkMount /examples/CompressionTest ajp13 JkMount /examples/SendMailServlet ajp13 JkMount /examples/servletToJsp ajp13 JkMount /examples/snoop ajp13 JkMount /examples/*.jsp ajp13 JkMount /examples/servlet/* ajp13 </snip> Here we see the two mappings you mention, but in this case /servlet/* is the 'invoker servlet' and not a directory named 'servlet' (or is it ?). The invoker of course is disabled in Tomcat 4.1.12 and above. Many sources tell us that /servlet was a convenience, and properly mapping your servlets is a preferred way to invoke servlets. So fine. I have a dozen servlets, none of which can be "gotten to" by saying "/servlet/servletClassName". So one advantage of having a ! mapping is that I won't need to restart Tomcat every time I add a servlet, so that this file (the one I snipped above) will get re-generated. And then re-start apache to pick up that file's changes. Please correct any misunderstandings, I get confused easily. ;) > -----Original Message----- > From: John Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:20 AM > To: Tomcat Users List > Subject: Re: possibly off topic: workers2.properties question > > > > You don't have to use the Invoker...my point was that > typically (at least > from what I have seen) people put their publicly accessible > servlets in one > place. If they're all in one place, and typically there > aren't any other > types of files sitting in the servlets directory other than > servlets, you > can use a mapping like "/app/servlet/*" as a way of telling > Tomcat "handle > all requests for that folder". > > Another example, such as the case with struts, is to use > something like > "/*.do" to handle servlets. > > John > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:04:26 -0500, Mike Curwen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not using Tomcat's servlet > > invoker. So I don't have a single 'some-string-here' (ie /servlet) > > that I can use. Or do I? > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, > >> June 17, 2003 11:00 AM > >> To: Tomcat Users List > >> Subject: Re: possibly off topic: workers2.properties question > >> > >> > >> > >> Sure, that could be done, but I honestly don't see the value. The > >> only > >> way this is "better" or "easier" is if you have your > servlets spread out > >> all over the place. Otherwise, you can handle everything > you need with > >> two mappings: > >> > >> /app/*.jsp > >> /app/some-string-here/* > >> > >> Since Tomcat doesn't "do" anything with any other type of file, and > >> since Apache is perfectly capable of handling every other > file type > >> besides JSP and servlet, what's the need for more > functionality? I'm > >> not arguing, just wondering what the advantage is. > >> > >> John > >> > >> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:23:02 -0500, Mike Curwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > This is something that's on the horizon for me, and I know what > >> > I'll > > >> end up doing is using that automated method of configuring > mod_jk. > > >> Tomcat will start and create a file that contains a > > >> uri:webappname/servletname mapping for each servlet mapped > in web.xml > > >> for all webapps. Then in apache, you just include this > file. But I've > > >> often thought it would be very cool to NOT have to do it > this way, and > > >> instead have a 'Not' type mapping from apache. In this > way, I could > > >> specify something like: > >> > > >> > [uri:!/app/images] > >> > and > >> > [uri:!/app/css] > >> > > >> > And then have everything *else* sent to Tomcat. > >> > > >> > Is this a huge pipe dream? Aside from the fact that > this is not > > >> currently implemented, can anyone see anything theoretically or > > >> practically wrong with an approach such as this one? > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Mark Eggers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, > >> > June > > >> 17, > >> > 2003 10:16 AM > >> > To: Tomcat Users List > >> > Subject: Re: possibly off topic: workers2.properties question > >> > > >> > > >> > Steve, > >> > > >> > You would single out what you wish to have Tomcat > >> > handle, and then Apache would handle the rest. > >> > > >> > For example: > >> > > >> > [uri:/app/*.jsp] > >> > worker=ajp13:localhost:8009 > >> > > >> > [uri:/app/servlet/*] > >> > worker=ajp13:localhost:8009 > >> > > >> > would send all files ending in .jsp and all files underneath the > >> > /app/servlet uri to Tomcat. Everything else underneath the /app > >> > uri would be served by Apache. > >> > > >> > Theoretically it is possible to be more fine-grained > >> > with perl-compatible regular expressions, but I've not > experimented > >> > > > >> with this. > >> > > >> > HTH > >> > > >> > /mde/ > >> > just my two cents . . . . > >> > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -- > Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: > http://www.opera.com/m2/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
