No problem, the list can be a little glitchy sometimes.
John
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:16:46 -0500, Mike Curwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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]
-- 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]
