Andrew,There was some test made 3 years ago to use the mod_proxybalancer for WO and it works well. There 2 issues to fix: one is trivial the session id key is "sessionid" and not "wosid" 5.4 and later support changing that key. The other issue is dynamic reconfiguration. Adding an instance require editing the apache config file and restarting apache. We need to add to the mod_proxybalancer a mechanism to dynamically load the configuration, this is not a major endeavor and I am looking for a volunteer… We should contribute this code back to the apache foundation so we don not have to maintain it ourself. I would be happy to work with whoever volunteer.
I like the idea of moving to a servlet container bundle. I am not sure what would be required for this to work.
Cheers Pierre -- Pierre Frisch [email protected] On Jul 8, 2009, at 19:26, Andrew Lindesay wrote:
Hi Mike;Given how close "mod_balancer" is to the traditional WO deployment, it might be a nice approach for "mod_balancer" to take on-board the few additional concepts necessary to support something which works like "JavaMonitor / wotaskd" so that deploying a WO system does not need a special Apache module compiled for it. That would make a whole heap of documentation and confusion go away.Yeah, this is actually exactly what I referring to :)I guess it's the obvious thing to do. :)Something like we're used to with JavaMonitor controlling the proxy balancer module would be very handy."mod_balancer" needs to be able to socket-connect to an external system (like wotaskd) to get the list of instances to 'balance over'. I'm sure you know that there is an HTML interface called "balancer manager" in mod_balancer, but of course it has no ability to start the running instances on remote hosts and is.. well... not that great. "Ping" and shutdown are supported as part of the AJP protocol (at least AJP13) and I think that "refuse new sessions" should perhaps be handled on the "mod_balancer" rather than the instance.Another thought which may reduce the deployment documentation/ development overhead and ease-of-approach for newbies is that WOA's could be built into servlets all the time, but that there is a "special servlet container" built into WO runtime that can launch the app in a way which resembles a stand-alone execution of the application without the palaver that often goes with servlet deployments. This idea may be quite nice.So are you suggesting that WO should ALWAYS be running as a servlet, just that WO itself has a tiny little servletish container in it that it uses for directconnect?In short; Yes! :) An important aspect of such a change would be to make that "tiny little servletish container" nice and simple to run, but still do the bare minimum to feed a servlet with WOMessage-s from HTTP or AJP and fudge the URL-s for "mod_balancer" (see LEWOAJPContext). BTW; still happy to push my the AJP adaptor framework into ProjectWonder instead of my distro if you want.cheers. ___ Andrew Lindesay www.lindesay.co.nz _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/pierre%40apple.com This email sent to [email protected]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
