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]
