Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at all clear what should get in. Indeed, a repository would be a better idea, with an apache distribution with no modules ( or only the core ones ).
Peter. Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > Aye ! Well said. > > Dw. > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, John K. Sterling wrote: > > > Here we go..... > > > > kitchen sink come on - we let a module into experimental (auth_ldap) and > > suddenly experimental will become the CPAN of apache. > > > > I think this is a silly idea personally. More cruft to maintain and to > > hold back releases, etc. etc. etc. Until Aaron's (et. al) idea of a module > > registry/repository becomes reality, jk should stay where it is. > > > > sterling > > > > >-- Original Message -- > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:15:43 +0200 > > >From: Peter Van Biesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Subject: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental > > > > > >Hello, > > > > > >I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core distribution. > > >It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution, what if an > > >other container implements the protocol ? Moreover, the mod_jk is of no > > >use to other webservers than apache and with the increased use of > > >servlets, most apaches will use mod_jk anyway. > > > > > >Anyhow, let me know what you think ! > > > > > > > >
