+1 on removing from trunk. IMHO AJP as a protocol is a dead end - it is not worth extending, and certainly not worth creating a new protocol. We need to pick one of thrift/protobuf/hessian for marshaling, and start doing some mux-ing in the protocol. If we end up using MINA or some other RPC - all the better, as long as it has a decent native side.
Costin On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> wrote: > On 27.03.2009 21:22, Mark Thomas wrote: > > Mladen Turk wrote: > >> Mark Thomas wrote: > >>> All, > >>> > >>> I have been looking at trunk for opportunities to remove duplicate / > >>> obsolete > >>> code. We currently have two BIO AJP connectors: > >>> - org.apache.jk.server.JkCoyoteHandler > >>> - org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpProtocol > >>> > >>> I would like to remove org.apache.jk.server.JkCoyoteHandler and > >>> associated classes. > >>> > >>> What do folks think? > >>> > >> Ain't those used for 5.5? > >> You can however just remove them from the build. > >> Other option is to copy them to the 5.5 and not referencing > >> the connectors for those set of classes. > > > > Sorry - should have been clear. I only meant in Tomcat 7. I didn't intend > > changing 5.5.x or 6.0.x > > +1: I support removing org.apache.jk.server.JkCoyoteHandler from TC > trunk (aka TC 7). > > I would be interested in any comments, what kind of feature or quality > might still be missing in org.apache.coyote.ajp.AjpProtocol and help to > implement them (if any). > > Rémy, others: are there improvements that should be done to this connector? > > Regards, > > Rainer > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
