If you want to achieve this the way I would do it is as follows WebServer --> proxy --> appserver instances
So scenario 2, it gives you the most granular control. Tomcat cat and jetty also have some config changes that you can make the effectively makes the proxy transparent to your APP so you can see the actual client ip address etc If you are wanting to do this on Windows I was mid way through a guide using IIS 7 ARR to proxy to tomcat In my mind the single instance install of tomcat is not a good idea, there are things in OpenBD which just don't work in that configuration due to some hard coded paths in the code base. So calling webservice for one, Plus i'd question whether the potential memory benefits of single instance out way the deployment flexibility and just plain simplicity of the WAR deployment. IIS7 also gives food rewrite rules support A On 21 December 2011 09:46, Ivo Verbeek <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, I have a question what would be the best setup for our situation. > I have one webserver with X webapps, that I want to divide over Y > instances of openBD. Some webapps I want to share an instance, some > webapps I want to give a dedicated instance. Also I will have apps > like a /rootfolder, then a /cfroot, a /dataroot, a /webroot, where > obviously I want the webserver "site" to point to the /webroot, inside > my /rootfolder. In other words, I want files to be outside the > webroot. Also, I prefer to have my webapps not in the /tomcat/webapps > folder, but seperated. > > I am new to openBD and as far as I understand it now, I have two > options to achieve this: > > 1) Setting up a connector bridge in Apache (IIS not yet possible), as > described here: > http://wiki.openbluedragon.org/wiki/index.php/Single_Instance_Install. > I think that would make it pretty much the Adobe CF multi-server > setup. This is through the mod_jk connector. > > 2) Setup the webserver (either Apache or IIS) to proxy in front of the > Tomcat/Jetty app server. > > Both sound pretty doable, I have seen many manual+docs to explain. > However, the question is, what scenario is best? > > If I understand it correctly, performance wise 1) is better. I assume > in such a scenario http requests for non-cfm/cfc files will not touch > the app server, while in the proxy 2) scenario, they will. > > Scenario 2) is closer to default install and is probably more easy to > work with, more flexible to work with the difference instances and > subdirs and will integrate better with URL rewriting. Also, security > wise it might be better? > > Anybody has thoughts about this that they are willing to share? > > Thanks in advance. > > Ivo > > -- > online documentation: http://openbd.org/manual/ > google+ hints/tips: https://plus.google.com/115990347459711259462 > http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en > -- Alex Skinner Managing Director Pixl8 Interactive Tel: +448452600726 Email: [email protected] Web: pixl8.co.uk -- online documentation: http://openbd.org/manual/ google+ hints/tips: https://plus.google.com/115990347459711259462 http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en
