[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNAPSE-383?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12682058#action_12682058
]
Supun Kamburugamuva commented on SYNAPSE-383:
---------------------------------------------
As for my understanding, mod_jk is a module to Apache which acts as a content
generator. When a request is received by Apache, if it is for Tomcat mod_jk
gives this request to Tomcat using a TCP connection. Tomcat has a worker
listening for these TCP connections and handles the request as in a normal http
request. Only difference is now the request comes via the AJP protocol instead
of HTTP.
Here are some of my thoughts about writing a seperate AJP transport.
AJP is a protocol tightly coupled to Tomcat. The goal was to deploy Tomcat in
to servers like Apache which uses native code. So one part of AJP is inheretly
coupled to Tomcat. Idea of AJP is to write the other part (using a module like
mod_jk) so that Tomcat can be deployed in to servers like Apache.
If we write a AJP based transport for Synapse it will be a direct bridge
between native code (Apache or IIS) and Synapse. In case of httpd, it cannot
handle the request asynchronously. I'm not sure how AJP is implemented inside
Tomcat. So I cannot be certain weather a AJP transport can be asynchronous or
not.
Also modules like mod_jk are specifically written for tomcat. If we write a AJP
transport, we may need to write both ends of the protocol.
If we are using a servelet based HTTP transport for Synapse, when Tomcat is
deployed in to a server like Apache, we automatically get the benifit of AJP.
So I still don't see the benifit of writing a seperate AJP based transport
(which can be difficult) vs using a servelet based transport.
> AJP 1.3 Transport Listener/Sender
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: SYNAPSE-383
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNAPSE-383
> Project: Synapse
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Transports
> Environment: Apache front end with Tomcat connected via the AJP
> protocol.
> Reporter: Jonathan Holmes
>
> understanding that this is not support but it does open the ESB up for
> different uses and different configurations. I guess the ultimate problem
> I'm having is that I have an apache front end which interfaces with Tomcat
> via AJP 1.3... Being able to just use the ESB admin port to see/execute the
> proxy services I create just as if it were running through the NIO
> listener/sender would allow me to not have to open another port or proxy in
> the requests through apache...
> This is essential because when trying to proxy in a PKI SSL request it is
> extremely slow. I have tested this by opening up the admin port and there is
> a huge increase in performance...
> I guess based on what I explained if the ESB's admin port was not opened is
> there a way to add an AJP listener/sender? This would solve my problem and
> still keeps the admin UI/port doing only admin stuff.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
