Thanks for that John, I was getting this confused: "do I send this to Tomcat" != "which servlet is mapped to this URL" (I thought it was ==)
I did reply a while back, to earlier emails, with "the lightbulb went off", but that email seems to have lost its way. Perhaps this one will work. Thanks again. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 1:49 PM > To: Tomcat Users List > Subject: Re: possibly off topic: workers2.properties question > > > > The "invoker" servlet allows you to skip explicitly mapping > your servlet in > web.xml. > > The invoker is bad. Explicit mapping is good. > > The /examples webapp uses the Invoker servlet. Its an > example. You don't > enable the /examples webapp in production, and with the JSP source > disclosure vulnerability for the Invoker servlet, you > shouldn't use the > Invoker in production, either, even though lots of people do > because its > "easier". > > /examples/servlet/* is the Invoker only because the web.xml > for /examples > sets it up that way. JkMount does not tell Tomcat which servlet to > "serve"...web.xml does that. JkMount just tells Apache which > requests to > send to Tomcat. > > "do I send this to Tomcat" != "which servlet is mapped to this URL" > > AFAIK (I've never tried it), you could keep > "/examples/servlet/* ajp13" in > httpd.conf, comment out the Invoker in web.xml, and then > explicitly map > every example servlet in web.xml, and the examples servlets > would work, as > long as <url-pattern></url-pattern> was something like > "/examples/servlet/someServletName". > > John > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:39:18 -0500, Mike Curwen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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]
