On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <devli...@hanik.com>wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote: > >> Costin Manolache wrote: >> >>> So in essence you have a new protocol but the sole >>>> difference is how you describe it. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The API can be something like: >>> - legacyRequest(RequestMessage) - whatever we have in the current AJP >>> protocol >>> - getServerLoad() and whatever new we wanted to add >>> >>> Instead of defining AJP extensions, we just pick one of the marshalling >>> libs >>> and use them >>> for encoding the new methods. >>> >>> >> Again, you are presuming a new protocol and IMO everyone >> here are just getting nasty red spots on their faces when >> you do such a thing ;) >> > I was gonna reply earlier, but my red spot reaction got kind of severe :) > I have a hard time seeing why we would need yet another protocol. > I think history has shown that to be a tough challenge. I am saying the exact same thing - we shouldn't add another protocol, it was a mistake to even have AJP proto in the first place, and we shouldn't attempt to extend it. However we do need some form of communication between tomcat and jk - what AJP provides won't allow much. And what I was suggesting is to not do another protocol - but find an existing one and use/adapt it. Costin > >> IMHO the solution would be to gather separate >> community and move all development outside the >> Tomcat, because it simply doesn't fit here. >> The current code base for mod_jk and java side >> connector is huge, and imagine how large it would >> be with all the bells and whistles added. >> >> Tomcat could serve as an incubator for such a >> project, but I see no reason not to use >> Apache Incubator directly. Maybe we will >> attract larger community this way. >> >> >> Regards >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
