Taking a broom to our modules was Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
--On Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:19 PM +0200 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the old outdated NCSA config directives? We add and add and add code -- which is not actually bad. But where's the man with the broom? Sounds a like job for someone. How about nominating modules for removal in 2.1, or at the very least split them off to an 'unmaintained' distribution? We can leave them there, but boot them out of our 'core' distribution. 2.0 saw the introduction of mod_dav and mod_ssl - two fairly large modules, but no real reductions elsewhere. My #1 vote is to throw mod_rewrite clear off the island. =) -- justin
Re: Taking a broom to our modules was Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: Sounds a like job for someone. How about nominating modules for removal in 2.1, or at the very least split them off to an 'unmaintained' distribution? We can leave them there, but boot them out of our 'core' distribution. 2.0 saw the introduction of mod_dav and mod_ssl - two fairly large modules, but no real reductions elsewhere. Reduction for reduction's sake doesn't achieve anything on it's own. My #1 vote is to throw mod_rewrite clear off the island. Whether something gets booted off the island should be based on lack of users, not an apparent lack of maintenance. A lack of maintenance could be caused by a number of things: the code works, and if it's not broken it doesn't need to be fixed (aka maintained); or the errors that do exist in the code are not major enough to inspire anybody to step forward and fix them. If a module is to be deprecated, then a sensible alternative needs to be provided. Just chopping out modules for the sake of chopping just leaves annoyed users, and this: people saying we're sticking with Apache v1.3, because v2.0 can't do XXX. Regards, Graham --
Re: Taking a broom to our modules was Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 03:18:47AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: My #1 vote is to throw mod_rewrite clear off the island. =) -- justin Why is it so important to kill off mod_rewrite that this comes up from time to time? Just take a look at the cvs history if you think mod_rewrite is unmaintained - Andre has been doing a great job on it and there's a fairly large userbase too. If you really wan't to take the hatchet to httpd's source tree, then maybe you should start with dead/unused mpms and perhaps mod_cache which has never really made it to completion. As I recall it, there was a great uproar when we suggested getting rid of mod_asis and mod_imap, which are both essentially unused - so it doesn't seem to make sense to go thrashing about in code that sees a fair bit of use. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
Re: Taking a broom to our modules was Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Mads Toftum wrote: Why is it so important to kill off mod_rewrite that this comes up from time to time? Just take a look at the cvs history if you think mod_rewrite is unmaintained - Andre has been doing a great job on it and there's a fairly large userbase too. If you really wan't to take the hatchet to httpd's source tree, then maybe you should start with dead/unused mpms and perhaps mod_cache which has never really made it to completion. Don't kill module A, kill module B instead. I suggest we don't kill anything which has evidence of being useful. And if something is broken, wrong, bad code, incomplete, then submit some patches to fix the problem! This is why we have peer review, so that different eyeballs get a perspective on possible flaws in the code. Deprecating code without supplying a suitable replacements in our new code leaves users with just one choice which they will freely follow: Use the old code. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Taking a broom to our modules was Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 8:12 PM +0200 Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 03:18:47AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: My #1 vote is to throw mod_rewrite clear off the island. =) -- justin Why is it so important to kill off mod_rewrite that this comes up from time to time? Just take a look at the cvs history if you think mod_rewrite is To be clear, my comment above was only tongue-in-cheek. I know people actually use mod_rewrite and didn't mean it seriously. nd's done a great job of channeling the spirit of RSE to get mod_rewrite usable again. However, there may be definitely real modules that we should consider retiring to an 'extra' distribution. If you really wan't to take the hatchet to httpd's source tree, then maybe you should start with dead/unused mpms and perhaps mod_cache which has never really made it to completion. Ideally, we should target those modules that have equivalent functionality offered elsewhere. One pre-req for separating out MPMs is that we need to make them DSO-able... *shrug* -- justin
Re: Taking a broom to our modules was Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
--On Sunday, August 1, 2004 8:25 PM +0200 Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And if something is broken, wrong, bad code, incomplete, then submit some patches to fix the problem! This is why we have peer review, so that different eyeballs get a perspective on possible flaws in the code. No, the problem is that if no one has maintained a module in years, we are doing our users a big disservice by shipping broken and unmaintained code. One way to indicate that is not ship them by default any longer. They'd still be available if you relied upon them. -- justin
Re: Taking a broom to our modules was Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 08:25:42PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote: Don't kill module A, kill module B instead. I suggest we don't kill anything which has evidence of being useful. Agreed - I just felt a bit provoked by mod_rewrite always being the target (and hadn't seen justins patch to mod_cache yet). And if something is broken, wrong, bad code, incomplete, then submit some patches to fix the problem! This is why we have peer review, so that different eyeballs get a perspective on possible flaws in the code. Take perchild for instance - noone has worked on that since rbb left, but we still get people complaining because they expect it to work (regardless of the big flashing warning sign) Deprecating code without supplying a suitable replacements in our new code leaves users with just one choice which they will freely follow: Use the old code. Check back in the archives for the discussion of why to get rid of mod_imap and mod_asis (or at least leaving them off by default). Though in principle I agree that crippling the server in a delayed spring cleaning frenzy isn't a great idea at all - I just tried to come up with a couple of alternatives if there really has to be trimming. I'd just rather not lose mod_rewrite in the same way as the debugging log level of mod_ssl disappeared, vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Yes, its in Bugzilla as well, I've posted about 3 times here to prod some discussion and/or testing outside of our own. I was referring to a connection pool using keepalives as you mentioned below. That would show a huge improvement for my mod_proxy/rewrite rule sticky load balancing hack. Byron -Original Message- From: Graham Leggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev Guernsey, Byron (GE Consumer Industrial) wrote: We are using mod_proxy and a patched mod_rewrite to do sticky load balancing. Mod_rewrite supports cookies, but not session based cookies. I added this functionality and posted the patch here (see mod_rewrite cookie patch (PR#28391))- still trying to figure out how to get it included in the httpd. Post it to bugzilla so the patch doesn't fall through the cracks, then follow up with a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so as to generate some discussion - you might have to do this more than once. I would find it very useful if keepalive connections were supported in mod_proxy. They are, but only if the client was using keepalives. This might change to a full connection pool at a later stage. Regards, Graham --
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Guernsey, Byron (GE Consumer Industrial) wrote: We are using mod_proxy and a patched mod_rewrite to do sticky load balancing. Mod_rewrite supports cookies, but not session based cookies. I added this functionality and posted the patch here (see mod_rewrite cookie patch (PR#28391))- still trying to figure out how to get it included in the httpd. Post it to bugzilla so the patch doesn't fall through the cracks, then follow up with a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so as to generate some discussion - you might have to do this more than once. I would find it very useful if keepalive connections were supported in mod_proxy. They are, but only if the client was using keepalives. This might change to a full connection pool at a later stage. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Graham Leggett wrote: Thing is it's easier for end users to not have to mess around with third party builds if it can possibly be avoided, and it's the needs of the end users who are the most important, not the developers. It was the main reason why we tried to go beyond the concepts of jk/jk2 and co. Also, nowadays almost every server implementation requires some sort of dynamic context delivery. Ajp concept has a nice feature not being dependant on any external toolkits like for example mod_perl and php are, so it's a good candidate for inclusion inside the core distribution. The fact that the current module has to be built separately is a huge issue for the users of the module, making such a module a built in addition to proxy will make people's lives easier. Henri tried to see if there is a common interest to possibly make a mod_ajp part of the core distribution. Think that discussion is leading to use the mod_proxy like a container for ajp protocol, that could be fine, but something like mod_proxy concept we already have in the jk2, called modular protocol. The main reason why we are trying to make a successor for jk/jk2 is simplicity and static set of requirements. Trying again to use the something would lead to the same problems thought. I don't think that it is necessary for a mod_ajp to be included inside the mod_proxy, although they are sharing some common concepts. Having load balancer on top of mod_proxy would be a nice feature, but the main purpose for them is different. The purpose of mod_ajp is to communicate with the (one or more of them in a cluster) application servers using ajp13+ protocol; simple as that. Proxy module has a conceptually different approach, and it is meant to be used for different purposes. I think it would be better that we develop the module inside j-t-c tree, and kindly ask the guys to see if there is a possibility to include it in the core distribution, when we reach some level of stability. MT. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Mladen Turk wrote: Graham Leggett wrote: Thing is it's easier for end users to not have to mess around with third party builds if it can possibly be avoided, and it's the needs of the end users who are the most important, not the developers. It was the main reason why we tried to go beyond the concepts of jk/jk2 and co. Also, nowadays almost every server implementation requires some sort of dynamic context delivery. Ajp concept has a nice feature not being dependant on any external toolkits like for example mod_perl and php are, so it's a good candidate for inclusion inside the core distribution. The fact that the current module has to be built separately is a huge issue for the users of the module, making such a module a built in addition to proxy will make people's lives easier. Henri tried to see if there is a common interest to possibly make a mod_ajp part of the core distribution. Think that discussion is leading to use the mod_proxy like a container for ajp protocol, that could be fine, but something like mod_proxy concept we already have in the jk2, called modular protocol. The main reason why we are trying to make a successor for jk/jk2 is simplicity and static set of requirements. Trying again to use the something would lead to the same problems thought. I don't think that it is necessary for a mod_ajp to be included inside the mod_proxy, although they are sharing some common concepts. Having load balancer on top of mod_proxy would be a nice feature, but the main purpose for them is different. The purpose of mod_ajp is to communicate with the (one or more of them in a cluster) application servers using ajp13+ protocol; simple as that. Proxy module has a conceptually different approach, and it is meant to be used for different purposes. I think it would be better that we develop the module inside j-t-c tree, and kindly ask the guys to see if there is a possibility to include it in the core distribution, when we reach some level of stability. Good resume Mladen. Many nice things was discussed on this thread : - adding load-balancing/fault-tolerant support for mod_proxy. A nice features to provide to mod_proxy users, and as such not dedicated to tomcat users. So it could (should ?) be an extension developped by mod_proxy and HTTPD team. And if they could make the lb/ft algorythm easy configurable (ie handling JSESSION_ID), it will be perfectly feeted for users who want to use the HTTP/1.1 connector of their servlet engines (tomcat of course, but it could be others like jetty). - adding ajp_proxy support to mod_proxy. With that mod_proxy could relay request to ajp:// pseudo URL. JK/JK2 developpers should learn how to make a mod_proxy sub module, and play for example with brigade :) In such case, there is no direct lb/ft support, so it will depend on the previously mentionned support in mod_proxy itself. - creating a mod_ajp which will mimics mod_proxy features but with jk/jk2 features in mind. - our actual lb/ft support (which should be more simple or better documented). - at a later time, dynamic topology (tomcat clusters state changes, application state in each tomcat, update of tomcat load level...) I'm more than pleased to read that httpd members see mod_ajp/ajp_proxy as something to be included in HTTPD tree, now or may be after an incubation period in the jakarta-tomcat-connector sub project. Of course it will make the couple Apache/Tomcat ready to use and as such easier for some of us to 'sell' to their clients and IT managers. So what should we do now ? - An initial step seems to extract all ajp functionnalities from jk/jk2, into an ajp library (or some c/h files). Basic AJP functions should use APR for all OS/NET/MEMORY operations and there is some code ready for this in jk2. - int ajp_open_connection(ajp_connection_t **, char *, apr_port_t) - int ajp_close_connection(ajp_connection_t *) - int ajp_send_request_headers(ajp_connection_t *, apr_table_entry_t *); - int ajp_send_request_datas(ajp_connection_t *, apr_pool_t *) - int ajp_receive_reply(ajp_connection_t *, apr_pool_t *) All of this should be using only APR objects like apr_socket_t, apr_sockaddr_t, apr_table_entry_t (headers), apr_pool_t... Next advanced AJP functions will forward a complete Apache 2 request to a tomcat. Many objects part of the Ap2 request are allready available in the Basic AJP functions, ie for headers the apr_table_entry_t... We could then work on a mod_ajp prototype, using only env var for example, to redirect a request to the correct named ajp instance (don't speak about worker). With such simple prototype we could see which hooks should be implemented, probably only ap_hook_handler/ap_hook_post_config. Actually jk 1.2.x may implements too many hooks, I didn't see any Apache 2 modules with all of these : ap_hook_handler(jk_handler,NULL,NULL,APR_HOOK_MIDDLE);
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Mladen Turk wrote: I don't think that it is necessary for a mod_ajp to be included inside the mod_proxy, although they are sharing some common concepts. I think it's very necessary - sharing those common concepts ultimately makes for doing things in a consistent way. It makes a big difference to the usability of httpd. Right now proxy is able to talk HTTP and FTP (and CONNECT, but it's a special case). It makes the most sense for AJP to be added to these three protocols, as there is already an established way to do this. Consistency is very important. Having load balancer on top of mod_proxy would be a nice feature, but the main purpose for them is different. Different to what? Load balancing is load balancing, whether the backend protocol is HTTP, AJP or FTP. I see no point on making significant effort in a feature that can only be used for one protocol, that's a huge waste of an opportunity to solve the load balancing problems of backends other than tomcat. The purpose of mod_ajp is to communicate with the (one or more of them in a cluster) application servers using ajp13+ protocol; simple as that. Proxy module has a conceptually different approach, and it is meant to be used for different purposes. I rewrote proxy, so I know - proxy has the exact same conceptual approach and is used for the exact same purposes. Proxy allows you to communicate with (one or more in a cluster) applications servers using HTTP or FTP. The only difference is the protocol. The development of proxy_ajp could see the development of modules like proxy_loadbalance or proxy_sticky, which have general application outside of the AJP protocol. Just rewriting mod_ajp for v2.0 isn't anything different to what exists now, so I don't see the point. Regards, Graham --
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Graham Leggett wrote: Mladen Turk wrote: I don't think that it is necessary for a mod_ajp to be included inside the mod_proxy, although they are sharing some common concepts. I think it's very necessary - sharing those common concepts ultimately makes for doing things in a consistent way. It makes a big difference to the usability of httpd. Right now proxy is able to talk HTTP and FTP (and CONNECT, but it's a special case). It makes the most sense for AJP to be added to these three protocols, as there is already an established way to do this. Consistency is very important. Having load balancer on top of mod_proxy would be a nice feature, but the main purpose for them is different. Different to what? Load balancing is load balancing, whether the backend protocol is HTTP, AJP or FTP. I see no point on making significant effort in a feature that can only be used for one protocol, that's a huge waste of an opportunity to solve the load balancing problems of backends other than tomcat. The purpose of mod_ajp is to communicate with the (one or more of them in a cluster) application servers using ajp13+ protocol; simple as that. Proxy module has a conceptually different approach, and it is meant to be used for different purposes. I rewrote proxy, so I know - proxy has the exact same conceptual approach and is used for the exact same purposes. Proxy allows you to communicate with (one or more in a cluster) applications servers using HTTP or FTP. The only difference is the protocol. The development of proxy_ajp could see the development of modules like proxy_loadbalance or proxy_sticky, which have general application outside of the AJP protocol. Make sense of course. And if proxy_loadbalance and proxy_sticky are somewhat configurable, it will be to the benefits all of Apache 2 users, dependless HTTP/FTP/AJP. BTW, could we expect to be able to use in proxy_ajp URL like ajp://VIRTUALNAME, where VIRTUALNAME could be the name of an AJP cluster backend ? Also could we expect the handling of failure via mod_proxy + proxy_xxx , ie: when a tomcat respond 503 or 400, to be able to switch to another tomcat in the cluster. It's a mandatory feature for now.
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Henri Gomez wrote: BTW, could we expect to be able to use in proxy_ajp URL like ajp://VIRTUALNAME, where VIRTUALNAME could be the name of an AJP cluster backend ? That would be up to proxy_ajp to decide, so yes. What happens is that when the config says ProxyPass /myApp ajp://VIRTUALNAME and the user requests the URL /myApp/index.jsp, proxy will give proxy_ajp an URL that looks like this: ajp://VIRTUALNAME/index.jsp It's up to proxy_ajp to understand what that means. Also could we expect the handling of failure via mod_proxy + proxy_xxx , ie: when a tomcat respond 503 or 400, to be able to switch to another tomcat in the cluster. It's a mandatory feature for now. Proxy already loops around and tries again on connection failure to a different server in the backend. If proxy cannot handle a 503 or a 400, then it can be made to handle it - again it's a feature that would be really useful regardless of the protocol. Regards, Graham --
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Graham Leggett wrote: I don't think that it is necessary for a mod_ajp to be included inside the mod_proxy, although they are sharing some common concepts. I think it's very necessary - sharing those common concepts ultimately makes for doing things in a consistent way. It makes a big difference to the usability of httpd. I'm sure that the 'normalization' would lead to nowhere. Right now proxy is able to talk HTTP and FTP (and CONNECT, but it's a special case). It makes the most sense for AJP to be added to these three protocols, as there is already an established way to do this. Consistency is very important. Having load balancer on top of mod_proxy would be a nice feature, but the main purpose for them is different. Different to what? Load balancing is load balancing, whether the backend protocol is HTTP, AJP or FTP. HTTP is a statles protocol, and our concept is to have a constant connection pool to the well known application server. So, unlike HTTP protocol we are embedding the remote application server, and it just happens that we are doing it using the same TCP/IP protocol for that. I see no point on making significant effort in a feature that can only be used for one protocol, that's a huge waste of an opportunity to solve the load balancing problems of backends other than tomcat. Quite contraty, this is the main reason. We already have jk2 that can be used even for proxying HTTP requests. Are you wiling to write the http protocol for mod_jk2? The purpose of mod_ajp is to communicate with the (one or more of them in a cluster) application servers using ajp13+ protocol; simple as that. Proxy allows you to communicate with (one or more in a cluster) applications servers using HTTP or FTP. The only difference is the protocol. Again, application server != http server. The development of proxy_ajp could see the development of modules like proxy_loadbalance or proxy_sticky, which have general application outside of the AJP protocol. Agreed, pehaps some day they will convolve to the single module, but right now I don't see the point for it, especialy when the mod_proxy is well established module. Just rewriting mod_ajp for v2.0 isn't anything different to what exists now, so I don't see the point. Well, that's how you see it. IMO trying again to squize the apache2-Tomcat module inside some already present solution would again lead to nowhere, and finally rise the questions like we are rising today. MT. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Graham Leggett wrote: Mladen Turk wrote: I don't think that it is necessary for a mod_ajp to be included inside the mod_proxy, although they are sharing some common concepts. I think it's very necessary - sharing those common concepts ultimately makes for doing things in a consistent way. It makes a big difference to the usability of httpd. Right now proxy is able to talk HTTP and FTP (and CONNECT, but it's a special case). It makes the most sense for AJP to be added to these three protocols, as there is already an established way to do this. Consistency is very important. Having load balancer on top of mod_proxy would be a nice feature, but the main purpose for them is different. Different to what? Load balancing is load balancing, whether the backend protocol is HTTP, AJP or FTP. I see no point on making significant effort in a feature that can only be used for one protocol, that's a huge waste of an opportunity to solve the load balancing problems of backends other than tomcat. The purpose of mod_ajp is to communicate with the (one or more of them in a cluster) application servers using ajp13+ protocol; simple as that. Proxy module has a conceptually different approach, and it is meant to be used for different purposes. I rewrote proxy, so I know - proxy has the exact same conceptual approach and is used for the exact same purposes. Proxy allows you to communicate with (one or more in a cluster) applications servers using HTTP or FTP. The only difference is the protocol. I see in ap_proxy_http_handler() that DECLINED allows to try another. Is there somewhere an example of a configuration using it? The development of proxy_ajp could see the development of modules like proxy_loadbalance or proxy_sticky, which have general application outside of the AJP protocol. Just rewriting mod_ajp for v2.0 isn't anything different to what exists now, so I don't see the point. Regards, Graham --
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Mladen Turk wrote: I think it's very necessary - sharing those common concepts ultimately makes for doing things in a consistent way. It makes a big difference to the usability of httpd. I'm sure that the 'normalization' would lead to nowhere. I don't follow - what does normalisation would lead to nowhere mean? HTTP is a statles protocol, and our concept is to have a constant connection pool to the well known application server. So, unlike HTTP protocol we are embedding the remote application server, and it just happens that we are doing it using the same TCP/IP protocol for that. You are missing the purpose of mod_proxy. It is not an HTTP proxy only, but a general protocol proxy that can support both stateless and stateful backends. Proxy supports HTTP keepalives (via a mechanism that can be extended into a full pool), and it supports FTP (a stateful protocol). There is no reason why proxy could not support another stateful protocol like AJP. If httpd is to support another backend protocol, then the proxy frameowrk is the place to do it. Quite contraty, this is the main reason. We already have jk2 that can be used even for proxying HTTP requests. Are you wiling to write the http protocol for mod_jk2? Considering that httpd already has a framework to connect to various backend protocols (proxy and friends), and already has an established syntax within httpd, I don't see any point in replacing it with another external module like the existing mod_jk2. Are you willing to write the ftp module for mod_jk2? Again, application server != http server. Of course an http server is an application server. Agreed, pehaps some day they will convolve to the single module, but right now I don't see the point for it, especialy when the mod_proxy is well established module. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to the way proxy works. mod_proxy is a framework - the module is not useful on it's own without helper modules plugged into the back of it. Right now, there are helper modules to support HTTP/1.1, FTP and HTTP/1.1's CONNECT method. mod_proxy currently handles the connection to the backend, it then passes this connection to the protocol handler module for completion. This connection handling can easily be pulled out into a load balancing module, allowing connections to the backend to be reused for HTTP keepalives, FTP session continuation and a connection pool for AJP, or a proxy_sticky module, that is able to ensure the same requests go to the same server. The bottom line is that httpd has an established framework for supporting backend application server protocols like HTTP, FTP, and now AJP. So far I have seen no technical justification whatsoever for putting an AJP protocol module outside of this framework. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Mladen Turk wrote: Graham Leggett wrote: I don't think that it is necessary for a mod_ajp to be included inside the mod_proxy, although they are sharing some common concepts. I think it's very necessary - sharing those common concepts ultimately makes for doing things in a consistent way. It makes a big difference to the usability of httpd. I'm sure that the 'normalization' would lead to nowhere. Right now proxy is able to talk HTTP and FTP (and CONNECT, but it's a special case). It makes the most sense for AJP to be added to these three protocols, as there is already an established way to do this. Consistency is very important. Having load balancer on top of mod_proxy would be a nice feature, but the main purpose for them is different. Different to what? Load balancing is load balancing, whether the backend protocol is HTTP, AJP or FTP. HTTP is a statles protocol, and our concept is to have a constant connection pool to the well known application server. So, unlike HTTP protocol we are embedding the remote application server, and it just happens that we are doing it using the same TCP/IP protocol for that. I see no point on making significant effort in a feature that can only be used for one protocol, that's a huge waste of an opportunity to solve the load balancing problems of backends other than tomcat. Quite contraty, this is the main reason. We already have jk2 that can be used even for proxying HTTP requests. Are you wiling to write the http protocol for mod_jk2? The purpose of mod_ajp is to communicate with the (one or more of them in a cluster) application servers using ajp13+ protocol; simple as that. Proxy allows you to communicate with (one or more in a cluster) applications servers using HTTP or FTP. The only difference is the protocol. Again, application server != http server. The development of proxy_ajp could see the development of modules like proxy_loadbalance or proxy_sticky, which have general application outside of the AJP protocol. Agreed, pehaps some day they will convolve to the single module, but right now I don't see the point for it, especialy when the mod_proxy is well established module. Just rewriting mod_ajp for v2.0 isn't anything different to what exists now, so I don't see the point. Well, that's how you see it. IMO trying again to squize the apache2-Tomcat module inside some already present solution would again lead to nowhere, and finally rise the questions like we are rising today. Not sure since mod_proxy will associate to a ajp://VIRTUALNAME, and in such case it's up to proxy_ajp to decide to : - keep the socket open - handle a pool of socket - fall back to another AJP instance in the cluster. So I think it could be done
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
jean-frederic clere wrote: I see in ap_proxy_http_handler() that DECLINED allows to try another. Is there somewhere an example of a configuration using it? ap_proxy_http_handler() is found in mod_proxy_http, which is the helper module that handles the HTTP protocol in the proxy framework. You will find a corresponding ap_proxy_ftp_handler() inside mod_proxy_ftp. mod_proxy tries each handler in turn until one of the handlers says I can serve this URL, I'll take it. ap_proxy_http_handler() will return DECLINED if the URL of the backend is not http: or https:, allowing mod_proxy_ftp, mod_proxy_connect or a potential mod_proxy_ajp to have a go at trying serve the URL. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
At 06:12 AM 7/21/2004, Mladen Turk wrote: Graham Leggett wrote: I see no point on making significant effort in a feature that can only be used for one protocol, that's a huge waste of an opportunity to solve the load balancing problems of backends other than tomcat. Quite contraty, this is the main reason. We already have jk2 that can be used even for proxying HTTP requests. Are you wiling to write the http protocol for mod_jk2? Because most casual observations have indicated that a solution of mod_proxy - tomcat outperforms mod_jk2 - tomcat, this can't make that much sense. jk2 is first and foremost a port of jk to use apr, but remains in the apache1.3 model. By jumping up to mod_proxy and adopting everything that structure has to offer, I would finally expect ajp to outperform http as a connector to tomcat. Bill
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
I'm late joining this discussion, but wanted to add my 2 cents. We are using mod_proxy and a patched mod_rewrite to do sticky load balancing. Mod_rewrite supports cookies, but not session based cookies. I added this functionality and posted the patch here (see mod_rewrite cookie patch (PR#28391))- still trying to figure out how to get it included in the httpd. I would find it very useful if keepalive connections were supported in mod_proxy. If I could reuse the connections, my sticky load balancing solution, which supports tomcat and the older enhydra or any app server that has a unqie cookie, would be as fast as a normal ajp connector. Byron -Original Message- From: Graham Leggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev André Malo wrote: Where's the user base of mod_imap (installed by default) or mod_cern_meta or the old outdated NCSA config directives? We add and add and add code -- which is not actually bad. But where's the man with the broom? The issue of unmaintained code is an important issue, but not one which should stop us considering new code. Whether mod_rewrite is maintained or not has nothing to do with a potential proxy_ajp, a module which by virtue of the volume of the discussion on it is certainly not going to have any maintenance issues any time soon. :) But at the end of the day guys with brooms are not what is important, it is the end users, whether there are any, and whether they're satisfied. If the code works and the users are happy, there is no need for a broom. Just to make sure, I'm not finally against adding a new module. But IMHO the much better way should be to improve the integration of TP modules rather than to put all of them in the core distribution. Thing is it's easier for end users to not have to mess around with third party builds if it can possibly be avoided, and it's the needs of the end users who are the most important, not the developers. The fact that the current module has to be built separately is a huge issue for the users of the module, making such a module a built in addition to proxy will make people's lives easier. Regards, Graham --
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Henri Gomez wrote: We're discussing on tomcat-dev about a new Apache to Tomcat Apache 2.x module. We'd like to see some of the core HTTPD developpers joins the discussion about the post JK/JK2 module. As a startingpoint, how about telling us what tomcat needs that mod_proxy and friends don't provide? -- Nick Kew
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Nick Kew wrote: On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Henri Gomez wrote: We're discussing on tomcat-dev about a new Apache to Tomcat Apache 2.x module. We'd like to see some of the core HTTPD developpers joins the discussion about the post JK/JK2 module. As a startingpoint, how about telling us what tomcat needs that mod_proxy and friends don't provide? In mod_jk/jk2, there is support for load-balancing and fault-tolerance and it's a key feature.
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Henri Gomez wrote: [ chopped tomcat-dev because that bounces my mail ] As a startingpoint, how about telling us what tomcat needs that mod_proxy and friends don't provide? In mod_jk/jk2, there is support for load-balancing and fault-tolerance and it's a key feature. Good start. I'm guessing you're ahead of me here, and your reason for posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is that you can see that implementing these capabilities will be of general interest to more than just tomcat users? My gut feeling would be to keep this properly modular. Let mod_proxy be the core of it, and implement load-balancing and fault-tolerance in additional modules. As a matter of fact, one of my wishlist-projects is a connection-pooling module for backend HTTP connections in a proxy. That might actually be the same as your project. -- Nick Kew
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Nick Kew wrote: On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Henri Gomez wrote: [ chopped tomcat-dev because that bounces my mail ] As a startingpoint, how about telling us what tomcat needs that mod_proxy and friends don't provide? In mod_jk/jk2, there is support for load-balancing and fault-tolerance and it's a key feature. Good start. I'm guessing you're ahead of me here, and your reason for posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is that you can see that implementing these capabilities will be of general interest to more than just tomcat users? Back to tomcat-dev + httpd-dev. Well this kind of features will be usefull for more than just Tomcat users of course. Our main interest in inviting httpd-dev members to tomcat-dev list is to see if common interest could be shared and of course take recommandations for the jk/jk2 successor. My gut feeling would be to keep this properly modular. Let mod_proxy be the core of it, and implement load-balancing and fault-tolerance in additional modules. As a matter of fact, one of my wishlist-projects is a connection-pooling module for backend HTTP connections in a proxy. That might actually be the same as your project. And what about using AJP/1.3 instead of HTTP for connection to tomcat ?) In fact mod_proxy could be a good starting point for learning how relying request from Apache 2.x to Tomcat for what we called actually mod_ajp, to avoid confusion with jk/jk2. But : - If you add load-balancing/fault-tolerance and AJP 1.3 support in mod_proxy you'll have about 99% of the current functionalities of jk 1.2.x. We discussed also the need for some dynamic mapping and topology discovery/update (between Apache and Tomcats Clusters). And in fine, we like to have some JMX like functionnalities in Apache 2, in our case CMX for C Management Extension, a way to update Apache 2.x configuration while the server is running...
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Henri Gomez wrote: And what about using AJP/1.3 instead of HTTP for connection to tomcat ?) In all my deployments of tomcat I have never seen the point of a custom protocol that did exactly what HTTP does, so all my tomcat deployments are all HTTP, with a simple mod_proxy frontend. Even the get Apache to server static content feature wasn't enough of a drawcard, as proper HTTP cache handling and a suitable cache solved this problem. It was far more important for me to arrange the web application as a self contained unit - I would rather be more tidy with an install at the expense of a slightly higher load, than sacrifice a clean install to save some cycles. - If you add load-balancing/fault-tolerance and AJP 1.3 support in mod_proxy you'll have about 99% of the current functionalities of jk 1.2.x. We discussed also the need for some dynamic mapping and topology discovery/update (between Apache and Tomcats Clusters). Proxy has a placeholder in it that says put the code to make decision about load balancing etc here - all that is needed is a hook and a module proxy_loadbalancing.c to make it happen. And in fine, we like to have some JMX like functionnalities in Apache 2, in our case CMX for C Management Extension, a way to update Apache 2.x configuration while the server is running... This is possibly a whole separate project in itself. I have been meaning to work on a get-apache-config-out-of-ldap extension for a while, what it really should be is get apache config out of wherever, but this should be an Apache wide thing, not limited to a single module or technology. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Graham Leggett wrote: Henri Gomez wrote: And what about using AJP/1.3 instead of HTTP for connection to tomcat ?) In all my deployments of tomcat I have never seen the point of a custom protocol that did exactly what HTTP does, so all my tomcat deployments are all HTTP, with a simple mod_proxy frontend. Well AJP/1.3 save cycle in tomcat avoiding it to re-decode headers for examples. It forward also the SSL infos if needed. And AJP/1.3 use persistant connections so it safe cycle also. jk was designed a long time ago so may be mod_proxy allready support persistant connections. Even the get Apache to server static content feature wasn't enough of a drawcard, as proper HTTP cache handling and a suitable cache solved this problem. It was far more important for me to arrange the web application as a self contained unit - I would rather be more tidy with an install at the expense of a slightly higher load, than sacrifice a clean install to save some cycles. - If you add load-balancing/fault-tolerance and AJP 1.3 support in mod_proxy you'll have about 99% of the current functionalities of jk 1.2.x. We discussed also the need for some dynamic mapping and topology discovery/update (between Apache and Tomcats Clusters). Proxy has a placeholder in it that says put the code to make decision about load balancing etc here - all that is needed is a hook and a module proxy_loadbalancing.c to make it happen. Great. And if you handle in the proxy_loadbalancing.c the JSESSION_ID, (sticky session) to map next requests to the tomcat who set it, you'll have everything needed. Of course you should also handle some mixed cases, like full round-robin, and sticky round-robin. The idea is interesting. And in fine, we like to have some JMX like functionnalities in Apache 2, in our case CMX for C Management Extension, a way to update Apache 2.x configuration while the server is running... This is possibly a whole separate project in itself. I have been meaning to work on a get-apache-config-out-of-ldap extension for a while, what it really should be is get apache config out of wherever, but this should be an Apache wide thing, not limited to a single module or technology. Well LDAP could be use for configuration outside a file. JMX/CMX goes a bit farther since it let you update some characteristics at runtime. But I agree that providing a JMX/CMX facade to Apache 2.x modules will be a good starting point. Costin will certainly clarify this point with you. In fine the discussed mod_ajp module should detect topology change in a second phase to learn for example that a tomcat in a cluster started/stopped a web application, so next requests could be redirected to another tomcat in the cluster. Also you should be able to update the load factor for each tomcat, may be having a load factor by Webapplication.
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
I very rarely post to this list, but I've been building web sites for over eight years, and want to chime in. In my experience building web sites for Fortune 500 companies (some of them Fortune 50 companies), the get Apache to serve static content while Tomcat only takes care of servlets and JSPs feature is a *huge* draw. But do you know what the biggest draws of all would be to any Apache 2 module that connects to tomcat? 1. Fantastic documentation. I cannot stress this enough. Hell, I'd even volunteer for this part. The module iteself could be poorly implemented, problematic to compile, and have truly silly defaults, but if it was incredibly well and clearly documented, I'd use it over mod_jk2 starting tomorrow. 2. Barring my comments in 1, a module that really and truly works, and has useful out-of-the-box (or freshly-compiled) defaults. (Maybe even, by defalt, *only* passes servelt/JSP requests to tomcat, and lets Apache handle the rest automatically.) -Manni -Original Message- From: Graham Leggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev Henri Gomez wrote: And what about using AJP/1.3 instead of HTTP for connection to tomcat ?) In all my deployments of tomcat I have never seen the point of a custom protocol that did exactly what HTTP does, so all my tomcat deployments are all HTTP, with a simple mod_proxy frontend. Even the get Apache to server static content feature wasn't enough of a drawcard, as proper HTTP cache handling and a suitable cache solved this problem. It was far more important for me to arrange the web application as a self contained unit - I would rather be more tidy with an install at the expense of a slightly higher load, than sacrifice a clean install to save some cycles. - If you add load-balancing/fault-tolerance and AJP 1.3 support in mod_proxy you'll have about 99% of the current functionalities of jk 1.2.x. We discussed also the need for some dynamic mapping and topology discovery/update (between Apache and Tomcats Clusters). Proxy has a placeholder in it that says put the code to make decision about load balancing etc here - all that is needed is a hook and a module proxy_loadbalancing.c to make it happen. And in fine, we like to have some JMX like functionnalities in Apache 2, in our case CMX for C Management Extension, a way to update Apache 2.x configuration while the server is running... This is possibly a whole separate project in itself. I have been meaning to work on a get-apache-config-out-of-ldap extension for a while, what it really should be is get apache config out of wherever, but this should be an Apache wide thing, not limited to a single module or technology. Regards, Graham --
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Manni Wood wrote: I very rarely post to this list, but I've been building web sites for over eight years, and want to chime in. In my experience building web sites for Fortune 500 companies (some of them Fortune 50 companies), the get Apache to serve static content while Tomcat only takes care of servlets and JSPs feature is a *huge* draw. But do you know what the biggest draws of all would be to any Apache 2 module that connects to tomcat? 1. Fantastic documentation. I cannot stress this enough. Hell, I'd even volunteer for this part. The module iteself could be poorly implemented, problematic to compile, and have truly silly defaults, but if it was incredibly well and clearly documented, I'd use it over mod_jk2 starting tomorrow. The documentation is bad, we all agree on this and when I take a look at any Apache module the doc is way better. But the lack of documentation is also due to the complexity put in jk/jk2 after years of features additions without re-factory. Also jk and jk2 inherited this, was designed to work with Apache 1.3, 2.0, IIS, iPlanet it supports also Domino and this cross compat stuff made it a very different Apache module. 2. Barring my comments in 1, a module that really and truly works, and has useful out-of-the-box (or freshly-compiled) defaults. (Maybe even, by defalt, *only* passes servelt/JSP requests to tomcat, and lets Apache handle the rest automatically.) Well documentation and good default are also requested by tomcat-dev main commiters. It's now time to refactor and redesign it with Apache 2.x (APR/AP) in mind to follow Apache 2.x admins habbits and try to make something simpler. We came on httpd-dev for advice from experts, and may be an extended mod_proxy could be the solution. But we also want to keep the AJP/1.3 and AJP/1.4 protocols since it works well and so a pure HTTP proxy is only part of the game. - Could mod_proxy be open to support AJP/1.x as tomcat connections ? - Should we learn from mod_proxy to redesign something using AJP ? Many questions which need experts answers...
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Please pardon me for attempting to marshall the obvious however what is the advantage of AJP/1.x over HTTP? Why is it worth the development time of apache volunteers? And why is AJP so advantageous over HTTP/1.1 that we should redesign existing modules to use it? I do apologize but I am not really familiar with the inner workings of tomcat as no webhost I have worked for to date has really pushed it. I think the answers to these questions would be useful for all of us who are more-or-less pure apache users/devs... -- Wayne S. Frazee Any sufficiently developed bug is indistinguishable from a feature. On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 08:51, Henri Gomez wrote: Manni Wood wrote: - Could mod_proxy be open to support AJP/1.x as tomcat connections ? - Should we learn from mod_proxy to redesign something using AJP ? Many questions which need experts answers... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Henri Gomez wrote: jk was designed a long time ago so may be mod_proxy allready support persistant connections. Persistence will happen on the backend on the condition there was persistence on the frontend. Generally the networks between backend and frontend are fast enough that connection setup is not a problem - a bigger problem is having expensive backend processes hanging around attached to a persistent connection that is not being used (assuming these connections are held by a tomcat thread of course, which may or may not be the case, not sure how tomcat is built internally). Great. And if you handle in the proxy_loadbalancing.c the JSESSION_ID, (sticky session) to map next requests to the tomcat who set it, you'll have everything needed. Sticky sessions has been on my list of things to support for ages - perhaps a proxy_sticky.c module could take a single parameter (the name of the parameter and/or cookie) and keep track of which server served it. If you had redundant frontends you might have a mechanism to keep track of which server is handling which session stored in a shared mechanism. A separate module might keep track of which tomcat servers are up or down, removing a server from the list of available servers on certain events (connection refused, error 4xx, 5xx, whatever). Well LDAP could be use for configuration outside a file. JMX/CMX goes a bit farther since it let you update some characteristics at runtime. But I agree that providing a JMX/CMX facade to Apache 2.x modules will be a good starting point. Costin will certainly clarify this point with you. In fine the discussed mod_ajp module should detect topology change in a second phase to learn for example that a tomcat in a cluster started/stopped a web application, so next requests could be redirected to another tomcat in the cluster. Also you should be able to update the load factor for each tomcat, may be having a load factor by Webapplication. In theory this kind of thing should not be limited to tomcat only, but to web applications (whether PHP, whatever) in general. Perhaps a mechanism that allows the backend to connect to the frontend and say status has changed, I am offering webapp XXX now, so count me into the pool. Or a mechanism for the frontend to poll the characteristics of the backend so that it can autolearn what webapp can be found where (has the advantage of not requiring a special backend module, apart from a magic URL on the backend giving relevant the information) This opens up some interesting possiblities for virtual mappings. Something like this: ProxyPass /myWebapp virtual://myWebbapp (or something) Where proxy can hand out the request to a backend that has recently said hi proxy, I serve myWebapp, feel free to contact me to fulfil a request. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Henri Gomez wrote: It's now time to refactor and redesign it with Apache 2.x (APR/AP) in mind to follow Apache 2.x admins habbits and try to make something simpler. We came on httpd-dev for advice from experts, and may be an extended mod_proxy could be the solution. But we also want to keep the AJP/1.3 and AJP/1.4 protocols since it works well and so a pure HTTP proxy is only part of the game. I think any module that speaks ajp/1.X should be called mod_ajp, keeps things simple and clean. - Could mod_proxy be open to support AJP/1.x as tomcat connections ? I don't think mod_proxy should support ajp, rather a dedicated ajp module should. But I'm still not convinced a separate protocol is needed when HTTP exists and is supported already. The httpd serves the static content feature can be implemented through extending ProxyPass to support regular expressions, for example: ProxyPass /myWebapp/*.jsp http://tomcat/myWebapp/ I'm not sure if persistent connections over and above HTTP/1.1 keepalives is that useful. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Wayne Frazee wrote: Please pardon me for attempting to marshall the obvious however what is the advantage of AJP/1.x over HTTP? - Persistant connections, mod_jk use a pool of socket connections to avoid reopening connections between Apache and Tomcats. You could set socket timeout to make these sockets more or less persistant. Also socket keep alive could be specified to avoid firewall cut connexions without activity. - AJP/1.3 reuse Apache headers decoding to avoid duplicate works in both Apache 2 and Tomcat, these headers are sent binary serialized. - AJP/1.4 (AJP/1.3 successor), add negociation support : - Apache and tomcat could be used in a secure mode, ie they should share the same secret word. - Possible add-on is to provide compression and/or crypt of datas between Apache and Tomcat. - AJP/1.4 should add a 'service layer' which should be used to warn about topology update. Why is it worth the development time of apache volunteers? Well development is allready here, we only need to extract all AJP stuff in a separate library (discussed in tomcat-dev). And why is AJP so advantageous over HTTP/1.1 that we should redesign existing modules to use it? The initial invitation was Apache 2.x module expert advices to design at the best the jk/jk2 possible successor. We didn't ask any httpd member to work on it (even if there is some people involved in tomcat-dev/jk/jk2 allready involved in APR and Apache 2, ie Jean-Frederic Clere). I do apologize but I am not really familiar with the inner workings of tomcat as no webhost I have worked for to date has really pushed it. I think the answers to these questions would be useful for all of us who are more-or-less pure apache users/devs... Yes.
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
One of the things I thought AJP did that HTTP proxying to Tomcat could not (but correct me here if I'm wrong) is let the servelt container know whether or not the connection is HTTP vs. HTTPS. This sort of information needs to get passed back to the servlet container to satisfy the servlet specification. Typcially, in an Apache/Tomcat configuration, Apache deals with all of the https connections (because it's better at it), and requests for servlet/JSP stuff are passed back to Tomcat, with information on whether or not the connection Apache has with the browser is HTTP or HTTPS. Anyway, for business sites, any servlet being able to know if the original connection was secure or not is a total deal-breaker on whether or not to use a particular technology (in this case, Apache/Tomcat) to host a web site. Also, servlets (by the specification) need to be able to manipulate HTP request headers, particularly where cookies are concerned. I was under the impression that AJP allowed this, whereas mod_proxy did not, but perhaps I am wrong? -Manni -Original Message- From: Wayne Frazee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev Please pardon me for attempting to marshall the obvious however what is the advantage of AJP/1.x over HTTP? Why is it worth the development time of apache volunteers? And why is AJP so advantageous over HTTP/1.1 that we should redesign existing modules to use it? I do apologize but I am not really familiar with the inner workings of tomcat as no webhost I have worked for to date has really pushed it. I think the answers to these questions would be useful for all of us who are more-or-less pure apache users/devs... -- Wayne S. Frazee Any sufficiently developed bug is indistinguishable from a feature. On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 08:51, Henri Gomez wrote: Manni Wood wrote: - Could mod_proxy be open to support AJP/1.x as tomcat connections ? - Should we learn from mod_proxy to redesign something using AJP ? Many questions which need experts answers...
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Graham Leggett wrote: Henri Gomez wrote: It's now time to refactor and redesign it with Apache 2.x (APR/AP) in mind to follow Apache 2.x admins habbits and try to make something simpler. We came on httpd-dev for advice from experts, and may be an extended mod_proxy could be the solution. But we also want to keep the AJP/1.3 and AJP/1.4 protocols since it works well and so a pure HTTP proxy is only part of the game. I think any module that speaks ajp/1.X should be called mod_ajp, keeps things simple and clean. We agree and I wonder if a mod_ajp could be used in conjunction with mod_proxy ? A sort of alternative way to route requests to tomcat. - Could mod_proxy be open to support AJP/1.x as tomcat connections ? I don't think mod_proxy should support ajp, rather a dedicated ajp module should. We agree. But I'm still not convinced a separate protocol is needed when HTTP exists and is supported already. The httpd serves the static content feature can be implemented through extending ProxyPass to support regular expressions, for example: ProxyPass /myWebapp/*.jsp http://tomcat/myWebapp/ I'm not sure if persistent connections over and above HTTP/1.1 keepalives is that useful. Well let see my suggestion : ProxyPass /myWebapp/*.jsp ajp://myajpworker/ myajpworker is not a machine but a virtual resource which could be : - a physical Tomcat using its AJP/1.3 connector - a cluster of physical Tomcats using their AJP/1.3 connector And via AJP/1.4 we could make Apache 2 learn about cluster updates in real-time. Could we have this kind of Virtual Forward service used with mod_proxy ?
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Manni Wood wrote: One of the things I thought AJP did that HTTP proxying to Tomcat could not (but correct me here if I'm wrong) is let the servelt container know whether or not the connection is HTTP vs. HTTPS. This sort of information needs to get passed back to the servlet container to satisfy the servlet specification. Of course HTTPS and SSL infos are forwarded from Apache to Tomcat. Typcially, in an Apache/Tomcat configuration, Apache deals with all of the https connections (because it's better at it), and requests for servlet/JSP stuff are passed back to Tomcat, with information on whether or not the connection Apache has with the browser is HTTP or HTTPS. Exact, so Tomcat avoid crypto works workload. Anyway, for business sites, any servlet being able to know if the original connection was secure or not is a total deal-breaker on whether or not to use a particular technology (in this case, Apache/Tomcat) to host a web site. Could you develop ?
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
One of the big advantages of using a connector from Apache to Tomcat is so that Apache can do what it does best, serve static content. And Tomcat can do what it does best, handling requests for servlets/JSP dynamice content passed to it from Apache. Another advantage is that apache can act as a load balancer for multiple Tomcat application servers. Regards, Glenn On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:07:06AM -0600, Wayne Frazee wrote: Please pardon me for attempting to marshall the obvious however what is the advantage of AJP/1.x over HTTP? Why is it worth the development time of apache volunteers? And why is AJP so advantageous over HTTP/1.1 that we should redesign existing modules to use it? I do apologize but I am not really familiar with the inner workings of tomcat as no webhost I have worked for to date has really pushed it. I think the answers to these questions would be useful for all of us who are more-or-less pure apache users/devs... -- Wayne S. Frazee Any sufficiently developed bug is indistinguishable from a feature. On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 08:51, Henri Gomez wrote: Manni Wood wrote: - Could mod_proxy be open to support AJP/1.x as tomcat connections ? - Should we learn from mod_proxy to redesign something using AJP ? Many questions which need experts answers... -- Glenn Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | /* Spelin donut madder| MOREnet System Programming | * if iz ina coment. | Missouri Research and Education Network | */ | --
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Hi, 1. Fantastic documentation. I cannot stress this enough. Hell, I'd even volunteer for this part. The module iteself could be poorly implemented, problematic to compile, and have truly silly defaults, but if it was incredibly well and clearly documented, I'd use it over mod_jk2 starting tomorrow. I agree that the docu about mod_jk2 is somewhat poor 2. Barring my comments in 1, a module that really and truly works, and has useful out-of-the-box (or freshly-compiled) defaults. (Maybe even, by defalt, *only* passes servelt/JSP requests to tomcat, and lets Apache handle the rest automatically.) although I'm not happy with all defaults of mod_jk2, I think you can very simply get the base connection to Tomcat up; we started with a simple how-to for NetWare, and later coned it for Win32 (tehse are both typical binary consument platforms where admins usually do not have such an insight as perhaps Unix admins): http://www.gknw.com/development/apache/docs/win32/mod_jk2/ if you look at the to ways we mentioned you can see that it's not so hard to get mod_jk2 up than you might think... f.e. if you rename this to workers2.properties: http://www.gknw.com/development/apache/docs/win32/mod_jk2/min_w2.properties and put it into your apache2 conf dir then mod_jk2 will pick that up automatically without further config, and you should already be able to browse Tomcat samples or docu though the connector... can this be more simple?? Guenter.
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Manni Wood wrote: One of the things I thought AJP did that HTTP proxying to Tomcat could not (but correct me here if I'm wrong) is let the servelt container know whether or not the connection is HTTP vs. HTTPS. This sort of information needs to get passed back to the servlet container to satisfy the servlet specification. This can be easily implemented by a combination of mod_proxy/mod_dir/mod_ssl and a well defined set of request headers - this doesn't justify a whole separate protocol though. It looks like the stuff that ajp can do over and above HTTP can be implemented using HTTP without much trouble. Also, servlets (by the specification) need to be able to manipulate HTP request headers, particularly where cookies are concerned. I was under the impression that AJP allowed this, whereas mod_proxy did not, but perhaps I am wrong? mod_proxy just passes headers (excluding hop by hop headers) between httpd and the backend tomcat, I don't know of any reason why such headers can't be manipulated by a servlet container. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Graham Leggett wrote: Henri Gomez wrote: It's now time to refactor and redesign it with Apache 2.x (APR/AP) in mind to follow Apache 2.x admins habbits and try to make something simpler. We came on httpd-dev for advice from experts, and may be an extended mod_proxy could be the solution. But we also want to keep the AJP/1.3 and AJP/1.4 protocols since it works well and so a pure HTTP proxy is only part of the game. I think any module that speaks ajp/1.X should be called mod_ajp, keeps things simple and clean. - Could mod_proxy be open to support AJP/1.x as tomcat connections ? I don't think mod_proxy should support ajp, rather a dedicated ajp module should. But I'm still not convinced a separate protocol is needed when HTTP exists and is supported already. The httpd serves the static content feature can be implemented through extending ProxyPass to support regular expressions, for example: That would be a hard requirement for our usage as well. A huge reason for using Apache is to serve the static content at that level. -- Jess Holle
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Henri Gomez wrote: Wayne Frazee wrote: Please pardon me for attempting to marshall the obvious however what is the advantage of AJP/1.x over HTTP? - Persistant connections, mod_jk use a pool of socket connections to avoid reopening connections between Apache and Tomcats. You could set socket timeout to make these sockets more or less persistant. Also socket keep alive could be specified to avoid firewall cut connexions without activity. The keep alive stuff turns out to be a hard requirement for many deployments. -- Jess Holle
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Henri Gomez wrote: We agree and I wonder if a mod_ajp could be used in conjunction with mod_proxy ? A sort of alternative way to route requests to tomcat. We have proxy_http and proxy_ftp protocol modules. That begs the question: can't proxy_ajp live alongside them? Well let see my suggestion : Makes sense. With the caveat that proxying plain HTTP can do much more than some posts in this thread seem to think. So the motivation has to be people want AJP, not HTTP can't do things. -- Nick Kew
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Anyway, for business sites, any servlet being able to know if the original connection was secure or not is a total deal-breaker on whether or not to use a particular technology (in this case, Apache/Tomcat) to host a web site. Could you develop ? AJP already does this, so it's already been developed. I just want to ensure this functionality is preserved in the new connector you are working on. But if you are inviting me to develop this for the new connector, I'm flattered! But I don't believe I have to technical expertise to do so. I assume this sort of stuff requires knowledge of C/Unix socket programming, which I've never done much of. Sadly, I know how to develop database-backed interactive websites for businesses, but I don't know how to develop truly sophisticated browser plugins. -Manni -Original Message- From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev Manni Wood wrote: One of the things I thought AJP did that HTTP proxying to Tomcat could not (but correct me here if I'm wrong) is let the servelt container know whether or not the connection is HTTP vs. HTTPS. This sort of information needs to get passed back to the servlet container to satisfy the servlet specification. Of course HTTPS and SSL infos are forwarded from Apache to Tomcat. Typcially, in an Apache/Tomcat configuration, Apache deals with all of the https connections (because it's better at it), and requests for servlet/JSP stuff are passed back to Tomcat, with information on whether or not the connection Apache has with the browser is HTTP or HTTPS. Exact, so Tomcat avoid crypto works workload. Anyway, for business sites, any servlet being able to know if the original connection was secure or not is a total deal-breaker on whether or not to use a particular technology (in this case, Apache/Tomcat) to host a web site. Could you develop ?
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:44:40AM -0400, Manni Wood wrote: In my experience building web sites for Fortune 500 companies (some of them Fortune 50 companies), the get Apache to serve static content while Tomcat only takes care of servlets and JSPs feature is a *huge* draw. I've replaced these with mod_rewrite + mod_proxy in more than a few installations, every time I got much better performance :-) -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:20:53PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
The httpd serves the static content feature can be implemented through
extending ProxyPass to support regular expressions, for example:
ProxyPass /myWebapp/*.jsp http://tomcat/myWebapp/
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/(.*)\.jsp$
RewriteRule (.*)http://127.0.0.1:8080$1 [P,L]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/(.*)/servlet/(.*)$
RewriteRule (.*)http://127.0.0.1:8080$1 [P,L]
.. is what I have, no need for new features :)
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Henri Gomez wrote: Well let see my suggestion : ProxyPass /myWebapp/*.jsp ajp://myajpworker/ myajpworker is not a machine but a virtual resource which could be : - a physical Tomcat using its AJP/1.3 connector - a cluster of physical Tomcats using their AJP/1.3 connector And via AJP/1.4 we could make Apache 2 learn about cluster updates in real-time. Could we have this kind of Virtual Forward service used with mod_proxy ? It's quite possible yes - currently mod_proxy has proxy_http and proxy_ftp to speak HTTP and FTP to the backend, it would make sense to put in proxy_ajp which could speak AJP to the backend, and would have the advantage of following the same config directives as the rest of proxy. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Graham Leggett wrote: The httpd serves the static content feature can be implemented through extending ProxyPass to support regular expressions, for example: This can be done now with mod_rewrite: RewriteRule (.*\.jsp)$ http://backend/$1 [P] Joshua.
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
The real trick is getting Apache to serve all of the static content, and getting tomcat to deal with only servlets and jsps. I notice in all of the documentation I find for mod_jk, an entire directory (/examples/* being everyone's favourite) is mapped to Tomcat, so that even requests for images are passed back to tomcat, rather than being taken care of Apache directly. For business sites where the entire web site is the webapp (/* in other words) apache is just passing *everything* back to tomcat, which pretty much makes one give up and serve the whole site using Tomcat, forgoing some of Apache's nicer features that have not yet been implemented in tomcat (such as mod_usertrack.) So I must stick to my argument here, and say that finding truly good documentation for mod_jk, for fine-tuned configuration, as required by the many business clients I've done work for, is difficult to impossible at this point in time. Not even O'Reilly's Tomcat book proved useful in this regard. -Manni -Original Message- From: Guenter Knauf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev Hi, 1. Fantastic documentation. I cannot stress this enough. Hell, I'd even volunteer for this part. The module iteself could be poorly implemented, problematic to compile, and have truly silly defaults, but if it was incredibly well and clearly documented, I'd use it over mod_jk2 starting tomorrow. I agree that the docu about mod_jk2 is somewhat poor 2. Barring my comments in 1, a module that really and truly works, and has useful out-of-the-box (or freshly-compiled) defaults. (Maybe even, by defalt, *only* passes servelt/JSP requests to tomcat, and lets Apache handle the rest automatically.) although I'm not happy with all defaults of mod_jk2, I think you can very simply get the base connection to Tomcat up; we started with a simple how-to for NetWare, and later coned it for Win32 (tehse are both typical binary consument platforms where admins usually do not have such an insight as perhaps Unix admins): http://www.gknw.com/development/apache/docs/win32/mod_jk2/ if you look at the to ways we mentioned you can see that it's not so hard to get mod_jk2 up than you might think... f.e. if you rename this to workers2.properties: http://www.gknw.com/development/apache/docs/win32/mod_jk2/min_w2.propert ies and put it into your apache2 conf dir then mod_jk2 will pick that up automatically without further config, and you should already be able to browse Tomcat samples or docu though the connector... can this be more simple?? Guenter.
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Manni Wood wrote: Anyway, for business sites, any servlet being able to know if the original connection was secure or not is a total deal-breaker on whether or not to use a particular technology (in this case, Apache/Tomcat) to host a web site. Could you develop ? AJP already does this, so it's already been developed. I just want to ensure this functionality is preserved in the new connector you are working on. But if you are inviting me to develop this for the new connector, I'm flattered! I asked you to develop your argument ;) But I don't believe I have to technical expertise to do so. I assume this sort of stuff requires knowledge of C/Unix socket programming, which I've never done much of. Well it will be C + APR :) Sadly, I know how to develop database-backed interactive websites for businesses, but I don't know how to develop truly sophisticated browser plugins. May be you could take a look as documentalist ?)
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
We in production environment, replaced mod_jk with mod_proxy a long time ago. It performed faster and it scaled to more concurrent users. So there was no benefit to the AJP protocol. All we would like to see, is to enable load balancing on either mod_rewrite or mod_proxy, and then we have everything we want Filip - Original Message - From: Manni Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Guenter Knauf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:58 AM Subject: RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev The real trick is getting Apache to serve all of the static content, and getting tomcat to deal with only servlets and jsps. I notice in all of the documentation I find for mod_jk, an entire directory (/examples/* being everyone's favourite) is mapped to Tomcat, so that even requests for images are passed back to tomcat, rather than being taken care of Apache directly. For business sites where the entire web site is the webapp (/* in other words) apache is just passing *everything* back to tomcat, which pretty much makes one give up and serve the whole site using Tomcat, forgoing some of Apache's nicer features that have not yet been implemented in tomcat (such as mod_usertrack.) So I must stick to my argument here, and say that finding truly good documentation for mod_jk, for fine-tuned configuration, as required by the many business clients I've done work for, is difficult to impossible at this point in time. Not even O'Reilly's Tomcat book proved useful in this regard. -Manni -Original Message- From: Guenter Knauf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev Hi, 1. Fantastic documentation. I cannot stress this enough. Hell, I'd even volunteer for this part. The module iteself could be poorly implemented, problematic to compile, and have truly silly defaults, but if it was incredibly well and clearly documented, I'd use it over mod_jk2 starting tomorrow. I agree that the docu about mod_jk2 is somewhat poor 2. Barring my comments in 1, a module that really and truly works, and has useful out-of-the-box (or freshly-compiled) defaults. (Maybe even, by defalt, *only* passes servelt/JSP requests to tomcat, and lets Apache handle the rest automatically.) although I'm not happy with all defaults of mod_jk2, I think you can very simply get the base connection to Tomcat up; we started with a simple how-to for NetWare, and later coned it for Win32 (tehse are both typical binary consument platforms where admins usually do not have such an insight as perhaps Unix admins): http://www.gknw.com/development/apache/docs/win32/mod_jk2/ if you look at the to ways we mentioned you can see that it's not so hard to get mod_jk2 up than you might think... f.e. if you rename this to workers2.properties: http://www.gknw.com/development/apache/docs/win32/mod_jk2/min_w2.propert ies and put it into your apache2 conf dir then mod_jk2 will pick that up automatically without further config, and you should already be able to browse Tomcat samples or docu though the connector... can this be more simple?? Guenter.
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:20:53PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
The httpd serves the static content feature can be implemented through
extending ProxyPass to support regular expressions, for example:
ProxyPass /myWebapp/*.jsp http://tomcat/myWebapp/
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/(.*)\.jsp$
RewriteRule (.*)http://127.0.0.1:8080$1 [P,L]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/(.*)/servlet/(.*)$
RewriteRule (.*)http://127.0.0.1:8080$1 [P,L]
.. is what I have, no need for new features :)
Well I didn't see where is load-balancing and fault-tolerance here ?)
That's one of the major feature of jk/jk2 and why many companies
used jk as frontal to Tomcat cluster farms.
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Along with the ability for your back-end servlets to get a correct value from ServletRequest.isSecure() depending on whether or not Apache was originally contacted with HTTP vs HTTPS? -Manni -Original Message- From: Colm MacCarthaigh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:44:40AM -0400, Manni Wood wrote: In my experience building web sites for Fortune 500 companies (some of them Fortune 50 companies), the get Apache to serve static content while Tomcat only takes care of servlets and JSPs feature is a *huge* draw. I've replaced these with mod_rewrite + mod_proxy in more than a few installations, every time I got much better performance :-) -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Graham Leggett wrote: Henri Gomez wrote: Well let see my suggestion : ProxyPass /myWebapp/*.jsp ajp://myajpworker/ myajpworker is not a machine but a virtual resource which could be : - a physical Tomcat using its AJP/1.3 connector - a cluster of physical Tomcats using their AJP/1.3 connector And via AJP/1.4 we could make Apache 2 learn about cluster updates in real-time. Could we have this kind of Virtual Forward service used with mod_proxy ? It's quite possible yes - currently mod_proxy has proxy_http and proxy_ftp to speak HTTP and FTP to the backend, it would make sense to put in proxy_ajp which could speak AJP to the backend, and would have the advantage of following the same config directives as the rest of proxy. Well : - mod_proxy + proxy_ajp could be one solution. Now what about the mod_proxy load-balancing add-on ?
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
I asked you to develop your argument ;) Ah. I'm trying my best. :-) May be you could take a look as documentalist ?) I would very happily volunteer my time to document this new module. Where do I sign up? How do I gain acceptance as a documentor, and if I am accepted, what would my next steps be? I'd love to help. -Manni -Original Message- From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev Manni Wood wrote: Anyway, for business sites, any servlet being able to know if the original connection was secure or not is a total deal-breaker on whether or not to use a particular technology (in this case, Apache/Tomcat) to host a web site. Could you develop ? AJP already does this, so it's already been developed. I just want to ensure this functionality is preserved in the new connector you are working on. But if you are inviting me to develop this for the new connector, I'm flattered! I asked you to develop your argument ;) But I don't believe I have to technical expertise to do so. I assume this sort of stuff requires knowledge of C/Unix socket programming, which I've never done much of. Well it will be C + APR :) Sadly, I know how to develop database-backed interactive websites for businesses, but I don't know how to develop truly sophisticated browser plugins. May be you could take a look as documentalist ?)
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:08:01PM -0400, Manni Wood wrote: Along with the ability for your back-end servlets to get a correct value from ServletRequest.isSecure() depending on whether or not Apache was originally contacted with HTTP vs HTTPS? Personally, I always use Apache to authenticate such things directly before allowing anything to execute. By allowing the script to authenticate it, the thing is already running and I'm already prone to whatever some scripter's idea of secure programming is - so there's hardly a point. It's much simpler to just not proxy if the originating request wasn't SSL. But if it's really neccessary that it be conditional, use an X- header, or a query string :-) -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Wayne Frazee wrote: Please pardon me for attempting to marshall the obvious however what is the advantage of AJP/1.x over HTTP? - binary protocol - it used to be more efficient to process it in java, but now it's no longer a major issue - bidirectional - it's not used only for request/response forwarding - ability to pass more than the request itself - like information about authentication, etc. AJP is more like XDR or DCOP, used for inter-process communication. But the main use is to forward requests and responses. Why is it worth the development time of apache volunteers? I think some apache-tomcat volunteers are willing to spend the time, they just ask apache-httpd volunteers for advice and help :-) And why is AJP so advantageous over HTTP/1.1 that we should redesign existing modules to use it? That was one of the ideas - to extend mod_proxy. I'm not sure it's the best solution, it may be better to keep mod_proxy simple :-) Costin I do apologize but I am not really familiar with the inner workings of tomcat as no webhost I have worked for to date has really pushed it. I think the answers to these questions would be useful for all of us who are more-or-less pure apache users/devs...
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Manni Wood wrote: The real trick is getting Apache to serve all of the static content, and getting tomcat to deal with only servlets and jsps. As has been pointed out, mod_rewrite can do this already. I notice in all of the documentation I find for mod_jk, an entire directory (/examples/* being everyone's favourite) is mapped to Tomcat, so that even requests for images are passed back to tomcat, rather than being taken care of Apache directly. Most of the time simple is better. It is only if you have serious loading problems that you would want Apache to take over the static load, or if you have an extraordinarily high number of static files to serve. Especially for a new user, they want to get from nothing to basically working in as few steps as possible. Getting it from basically working to working as fast as possible is a separate exercise. I fully agree that having Apache able to serve static content can be very useful in many situations, but I don't think it need apply in the default case. For business sites where the entire web site is the webapp (/* in other words) apache is just passing *everything* back to tomcat, which pretty much makes one give up and serve the whole site using Tomcat, forgoing some of Apache's nicer features that have not yet been implemented in tomcat (such as mod_usertrack.) Remember that in Apache v2.0 most of the modules like mod_usertrack are implemented as filters. This means that you can add mod_usertrack to the frontend, and use it regardless of where the actual response came from (tomcat via ajp or proxy, a static file on disk, whatever). It's very useful when you have a site with multiple sources of responses, and you want certain things to work across the board. So I must stick to my argument here, and say that finding truly good documentation for mod_jk, for fine-tuned configuration, as required by the many business clients I've done work for, is difficult to impossible at this point in time. This I agree with, but the fix here is to improve the docs, rather than change the code. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Manni Wood wrote: I asked you to develop your argument ;) Ah. I'm trying my best. :-) May be you could take a look as documentalist ?) I would very happily volunteer my time to document this new module. Where do I sign up? How do I gain acceptance as a documentor, and if I am accepted, what would my next steps be? I'd love to help. Well what about writing jk 1.2.x but following Apache 2.0 xml documentation. You could start by merging Apache 2.0 directive, like JkMount : http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc/jk2/jk/aphowto.html and workers.properties : http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc/jk2/jk/workershowto.html Thanks to join us at tomcat-dev :)
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Henri Gomez wrote: - mod_proxy + proxy_ajp could be one solution. Now what about the mod_proxy load-balancing add-on ? Would be a completely separate module. The way proxy works, is that it: - obtains the IP address to connect to (currently via DNS round robin, but a module proxy_loadbalancer might make a more intelligent choice of IP address) - opens a connection to that address (unless a connection is already open due to keepalive behaviour, in which case just use that) - pass control to the backend protocol handler (proxy_http, or proxy_ftp, or proxy_ajp) Load balancing would happen at step one. Such a module would need a way to decide load (in the simplest case, by spreading load, in a more complex case, by actually asking the backend servers for the loads so to make a more intelligent decision). Such a module need not work with tomcat only, but with any backend, and any protocol. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Graham Leggett wrote: Manni Wood wrote: The real trick is getting Apache to serve all of the static content, and getting tomcat to deal with only servlets and jsps. As has been pointed out, mod_rewrite can do this already. I notice in all of the documentation I find for mod_jk, an entire directory (/examples/* being everyone's favourite) is mapped to Tomcat, so that even requests for images are passed back to tomcat, rather than being taken care of Apache directly. Most of the time simple is better. It is only if you have serious loading problems that you would want Apache to take over the static load, or if you have an extraordinarily high number of static files to serve. Especially for a new user, they want to get from nothing to basically working in as few steps as possible. Getting it from basically working to working as fast as possible is a separate exercise. I fully agree that having Apache able to serve static content can be very useful in many situations, but I don't think it need apply in the default case. For business sites where the entire web site is the webapp (/* in other words) apache is just passing *everything* back to tomcat, which pretty much makes one give up and serve the whole site using Tomcat, forgoing some of Apache's nicer features that have not yet been implemented in tomcat (such as mod_usertrack.) Remember that in Apache v2.0 most of the modules like mod_usertrack are implemented as filters. This means that you can add mod_usertrack to the frontend, and use it regardless of where the actual response came from (tomcat via ajp or proxy, a static file on disk, whatever). It's very useful when you have a site with multiple sources of responses, and you want certain things to work across the board. So I must stick to my argument here, and say that finding truly good documentation for mod_jk, for fine-tuned configuration, as required by the many business clients I've done work for, is difficult to impossible at this point in time. This I agree with, but the fix here is to improve the docs, rather than change the code. Well jk/jk2 didn't works well every time with others modules since for example they handle some URIs themself, so appears problems with Alias/Directory/Files/UserDir and so on ;( The documentation is a good thing, a rewrite of the code based on APR (no more tons of defines to handle all os by hands), and a design focused on Apache 2.x will be the final solution. And in fine if we could have proxy_ajp included in Apache 2.x distribution, we'll a great step in Apache2/Tomcat integration, which should be a goal for ASF members we are. Regards
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Well what about writing jk 1.2.x but following Apache 2.0 xml documentation. You could start by merging Apache 2.0 directive, like JkMount : http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc/jk2/jk/aphowto.html and workers.properties : http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc/jk2/jk/workershowto.html Thanks to join us at tomcat-dev :) That sounds great. I have next week off work; it would be a good opportunity for me to give something back to the community. -Manni -Original Message- From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev Manni Wood wrote: I asked you to develop your argument ;) Ah. I'm trying my best. :-) May be you could take a look as documentalist ?) I would very happily volunteer my time to document this new module. Where do I sign up? How do I gain acceptance as a documentor, and if I am accepted, what would my next steps be? I'd love to help. Well what about writing jk 1.2.x but following Apache 2.0 xml documentation. You could start by merging Apache 2.0 directive, like JkMount : http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc/jk2/jk/aphowto.html and workers.properties : http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/connectors-doc/jk2/jk/workershowto.html Thanks to join us at tomcat-dev :)
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Graham Leggett wrote: Henri Gomez wrote: And what about using AJP/1.3 instead of HTTP for connection to tomcat ?) In all my deployments of tomcat I have never seen the point of a custom protocol that did exactly what HTTP does, so all my tomcat deployments are all HTTP, with a simple mod_proxy frontend. Even the get Apache to server static content feature wasn't enough of a drawcard, as proper HTTP cache handling and a suitable cache solved this problem. It was far more important for me to arrange the web application as a self contained unit - I would rather be more tidy with an install at the expense of a slightly higher load, than sacrifice a clean install to save some cycles. - If you add load-balancing/fault-tolerance and AJP 1.3 support in mod_proxy you'll have about 99% of the current functionalities of jk 1.2.x. We discussed also the need for some dynamic mapping and topology discovery/update (between Apache and Tomcats Clusters). Proxy has a placeholder in it that says put the code to make decision about load balancing etc here - all that is needed is a hook and a module proxy_loadbalancing.c to make it happen. And in fine, we like to have some JMX like functionnalities in Apache 2, in our case CMX for C Management Extension, a way to update Apache 2.x configuration while the server is running... This is possibly a whole separate project in itself. I have been meaning to work on a get-apache-config-out-of-ldap extension for a while, what it really should be is get apache config out of wherever, but this should be an Apache wide thing, not limited to a single module or technology. I think using mod_proxy is acceptable for our most important needs, as the Tomcat HTTP/1.1 connnector has acceptable performance. We would need: - JSESSIONID stickiness - persistent connections support - (and of course) load balancing (with a static worker list) with failover - bonus points for auto retry (if the request allows it) to another node when recieving a 503 status SSL client-cert support (which I have no idea how to implement with mod_proxy, or maybe I missed something) and more generally, support for doing auth on the native webserver doesn't seem to be there, which is a problem. For ease of use, we need this Tomcat policy (actually, it's not Tomcat specific, obviously) to be included in the Apache source distribution, and ready to enable. I would like a more custom solution better, but if that's the only acceptable solution for you (and you accept the module into the Apache ;) ), then I'm ok with it. In this case, we would need another, more complex connector for the advanced use cases, but we would have addressed the needs of the majority of users. Rémy
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:13:52PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote: In theory this kind of thing should not be limited to tomcat only, but to web applications (whether PHP, whatever) in general. Perhaps a mechanism that allows the backend to connect to the frontend and say status has changed, I am offering webapp XXX now, so count me into the pool. Or a mechanism for the frontend to poll the characteristics of the backend so that it can autolearn what webapp can be found where (has the advantage of not requiring a special backend module, apart from a magic URL on the backend giving relevant the information) Rather than a magic URL, this sounds like a job for OPTIONS. The clever load balancing code could send an OPTIONS request and use the response to determine if that particular backend is a) up b) accepting requests at all c) associate a priority with that backend. Using OPTIONS has the advantage of being backwards compatible, if you send OPTIONS to a plain-old HTTP receiver, the standard ACK can be taken to mean yep, I'm here. Intelligent backends (read: modify tomcat and co slightly) can have an X-header or whatever to go I'm accepting this, this and this, and my current load is this. From RFC2616: This method allows the client to determine the options and/or requirements associated with a resource, or the capabilities of a server, without implying a resource action or initiating a resource retrieval. ProxyPass /myWebapp virtual://myWebbapp (or something) Where proxy can hand out the request to a backend that has recently said hi proxy, I serve myWebapp, feel free to contact me to fulfil a request. Same here, but wouldn't be elegant to use OPTIONS? -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 06:02:37PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: Using OPTIONS has the advantage of being backwards compatible, if you send OPTIONS to a plain-old HTTP receiver, the standard ACK can be taken to mean yep, I'm here. Intelligent backends (read: modify tomcat and co slightly) can have an X-header or whatever to go I'm accepting this, this and this, and my current load is this. Oh and I forgot to mention, it can be server-wide or URI-specific, which seems like desirable flexibility in this situation. -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Henri Gomez wrote: And in fine if we could have proxy_ajp included in Apache 2.x distribution, we'll a great step in Apache2/Tomcat integration, which should be a goal for ASF members we are. Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
At 10:20 AM 7/20/2004, Graham Leggett wrote: Henri Gomez wrote: It's now time to refactor and redesign it with Apache 2.x (APR/AP) in mind to follow Apache 2.x admins habbits and try to make something simpler. We came on httpd-dev for advice from experts, and may be an extended mod_proxy could be the solution. But we also want to keep the AJP/1.3 and AJP/1.4 protocols since it works well and so a pure HTTP proxy is only part of the game. I think any module that speaks ajp/1.X should be called mod_ajp, keeps things simple and clean. Definately. This could also be a mod_proxy_ajp plugable proxy protocol module (like mod_proxy_ftp etc.) - Could mod_proxy be open to support AJP/1.x as tomcat connections ? I don't think mod_proxy should support ajp, rather a dedicated ajp module should. But I'm still not convinced a separate protocol is needed when HTTP exists and is supported already. The http-ng protocol proposals mostly center on less text - more predictable (and more harshly parsed) binary request and response formats. In theory (if not in practice) re-encoding and re-decoding headers is a burden. The httpd serves the static content feature can be implemented through extending ProxyPass to support regular expressions, for example: ProxyPass /myWebapp/*.jsp http://tomcat/myWebapp/ ++1 - this feature would help regardless. But if you want to do mod_proxy_ajp, the same could be written: ProxyPass /myWebapp/*.jsp ajp://tomcat/myWebapp I'm not sure if persistent connections over and above HTTP/1.1 keepalives is that useful. Not having to handshake-away tcp sockets which are frequently reused is a good thing. That said - keepalives accomplishes this for http: Bill p.s. just read ahead in this thread - and see Henri came up with the same general idea :)
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: Using OPTIONS has the advantage of being backwards compatible, if you send OPTIONS to a plain-old HTTP receiver, the standard ACK can be taken to mean yep, I'm here. Intelligent backends (read: modify tomcat and co slightly) can have an X-header or whatever to go I'm accepting this, this and this, and my current load is this. This makes sense - you would just need to tell proxy the possible servers, and an intelligent load balancer might try find out the current status of those servers based on querying options to find out on a regular basis. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
* Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Henri Gomez wrote: And in fine if we could have proxy_ajp included in Apache 2.x distribution, we'll a great step in Apache2/Tomcat integration, which should be a goal for ASF members we are. Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Hmm. I'd include rather in tomcat distribution than httpd-2.0. That seems to be way more logical. nd -- Solides und umfangreiches Buch -- aus einer Rezension http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Hmm. I'd include rather in tomcat distribution than httpd-2.0. That seems to be way more logical. I'd include it in Apache, not Tomcat. It's an apache module, after all, and I only want to have to run ./configure once, when I've downloaded the Apache source, not a second time, after I've downloaded Tomcat. Besides, mod_proxy_ajp (or whatever it ends up being called) can be not included by a default ./configure, so that people who don't need it don't get it, whereas people who do want it finally have a long-standing wish fulfilled: tigher integration into Apache. -Manni -Original Message- From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev * Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Henri Gomez wrote: And in fine if we could have proxy_ajp included in Apache 2.x distribution, we'll a great step in Apache2/Tomcat integration, which should be a goal for ASF members we are. Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Hmm. I'd include rather in tomcat distribution than httpd-2.0. That seems to be way more logical. nd -- Solides und umfangreiches Buch -- aus einer Rezension http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
I don't know how much I can stress this without sounding pedantic, but it's stuff like this that really does make a difference in how easily I can sell Apache/Tomcat to my clients as opposed to iPlanet/WebLogic or (shudder) IIS/something-lame. -Manni -Original Message- From: Manni Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Hmm. I'd include rather in tomcat distribution than httpd-2.0. That seems to be way more logical. I'd include it in Apache, not Tomcat. It's an apache module, after all, and I only want to have to run ./configure once, when I've downloaded the Apache source, not a second time, after I've downloaded Tomcat. Besides, mod_proxy_ajp (or whatever it ends up being called) can be not included by a default ./configure, so that people who don't need it don't get it, whereas people who do want it finally have a long-standing wish fulfilled: tigher integration into Apache. -Manni -Original Message- From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev * Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Henri Gomez wrote: And in fine if we could have proxy_ajp included in Apache 2.x distribution, we'll a great step in Apache2/Tomcat integration, which should be a goal for ASF members we are. Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Hmm. I'd include rather in tomcat distribution than httpd-2.0. That seems to be way more logical. nd -- Solides und umfangreiches Buch -- aus einer Rezension http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
* Manni Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Hmm. I'd include rather in tomcat distribution than httpd-2.0. That seems to be way more logical. I'd include it in Apache, not Tomcat. It's an apache module, after all, oh? Like all the other hundreds of modules out there? mod_perl? mod_python? Sorry, that's not an argument. nd -- Gefunden auf einer Webdesigner-Seite: Programmierung in HTML, XML, WML, CGI, FLASH # André Malo # http://pub.perlig.de/ #
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Perhaps I just don't undestand how infrequently Apache and Tomcat get used together. I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that they get used together often enough to warrant the plugin's inclusion with the Apache source code. (After all, both projects *are* ASF projects.) But it's perfectly possible that I, and all the web developers I've worked with over the years, are not an accurrate representation of the Apache user base as a whole. If the module is not included as a part of Apache, and instead ships with Tomcat, it would sadden me and many web developers I know, but, Andre, as you point out, there are good reasons for your line of thinking. -Manni -Original Message- From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev * Manni Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Hmm. I'd include rather in tomcat distribution than httpd-2.0. That seems to be way more logical. I'd include it in Apache, not Tomcat. It's an apache module, after all, oh? Like all the other hundreds of modules out there? mod_perl? mod_python? Sorry, that's not an argument. nd -- Gefunden auf einer Webdesigner-Seite: Programmierung in HTML, XML, WML, CGI, FLASH # André Malo # http://pub.perlig.de/ #
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
At 12:49 PM 7/20/2004, André Malo wrote: * Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Henri Gomez wrote: And in fine if we could have proxy_ajp included in Apache 2.x distribution, we'll a great step in Apache2/Tomcat integration, which should be a goal for ASF members we are. Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Hmm. I'd include rather in tomcat distribution than httpd-2.0. That seems to be way more logical. Didn't mod_mono use ajp as their connector? I know I considered it, too, when I wrote mod_aspdotnet - for frontend non-win32 boxes to connect to a back-end win32 hosted asp.net server. My point is simply that ajp is wider than tomcat alone. Bill
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
André Malo wrote: Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Hmm. I'd include rather in tomcat distribution than httpd-2.0. That seems to be way more logical. Tomcat is a Java package, proxy_ajp would be C code that integrates with httpd. I would rather see such a module in httpd rather than have to jump through hoops trying to get it to work as a separate module, as is the case now, as it would be significantly more practical. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Manni Wood wrote: Perhaps I just don't undestand how infrequently Apache and Tomcat get used together. I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that they get used together often enough to warrant the plugin's inclusion with the Apache source code. (After all, both projects *are* ASF projects.) But it's perfectly possible that I, and all the web developers I've worked with over the years, are not an accurrate representation of the Apache user base as a whole. If the module is not included as a part of Apache, and instead ships with Tomcat, it would sadden me and many web developers I know, but, Andre, as you point out, there are good reasons for your line of thinking. The ajp protocol is also used by jetty and possibly other servlet containers. One of the reasons mod_jk was bundled with tomcat was that it supports multiple web servers, and both apache2 and apache1.3. What many people want is to drop support for other servers, and have an apache2-only module, with close integration ( use httpd.conf instead of special config file, etc ). For such a module - it would make much more sense to bundle it with apache IMO - one of the pain points is compiling the module and installing it in apache ( binary distributions are tricky). Costin -Manni -Original Message- From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev * Manni Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Hmm. I'd include rather in tomcat distribution than httpd-2.0. That seems to be way more logical. I'd include it in Apache, not Tomcat. It's an apache module, after all, oh? Like all the other hundreds of modules out there? mod_perl? mod_python? Sorry, that's not an argument. nd
RE: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
What many people want is to drop support for other servers, and have an apache2-only module, with close integration ( use httpd.conf instead of special config file, etc ). For such a module - it would make much more sense to bundle it with apache IMO - one of the pain points is compiling the module and installing it in apache ( binary distributions are tricky). Again, I don't know what percentage of the Apache/Tomcat user population I represent, but the situation described above, if it ever came true, would leave me and the programmers I work with absolutely *elated*, not to mention in a stronger position to recommend Apache/Tomcat to our clients/bosses over other, non-open-source alternatives. -Manni -Original Message- From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Costin Manolache Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 3:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev Manni Wood wrote: Perhaps I just don't undestand how infrequently Apache and Tomcat get used together. I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that they get used together often enough to warrant the plugin's inclusion with the Apache source code. (After all, both projects *are* ASF projects.) But it's perfectly possible that I, and all the web developers I've worked with over the years, are not an accurrate representation of the Apache user base as a whole. If the module is not included as a part of Apache, and instead ships with Tomcat, it would sadden me and many web developers I know, but, Andre, as you point out, there are good reasons for your line of thinking. The ajp protocol is also used by jetty and possibly other servlet containers. One of the reasons mod_jk was bundled with tomcat was that it supports multiple web servers, and both apache2 and apache1.3. What many people want is to drop support for other servers, and have an apache2-only module, with close integration ( use httpd.conf instead of special config file, etc ). For such a module - it would make much more sense to bundle it with apache IMO - one of the pain points is compiling the module and installing it in apache ( binary distributions are tricky). Costin -Manni -Original Message- From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev * Manni Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Hmm. I'd include rather in tomcat distribution than httpd-2.0. That seems to be way more logical. I'd include it in Apache, not Tomcat. It's an apache module, after all, oh? Like all the other hundreds of modules out there? mod_perl? mod_python? Sorry, that's not an argument. nd
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
* Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [replying to multiple posts] André Malo wrote: Having proxy_ajp included in httpd v2.0 would be a good thing - there is a base of users for it (with it's more advanced handling of things like indicating secure connections, etc it's useful). Hmm. I'd include rather in tomcat distribution than httpd-2.0. That seems to be way more logical. Tomcat is a Java package, proxy_ajp would be C code that integrates with httpd. I would rather see such a module in httpd rather than have to jump through hoops trying to get it to work as a separate module, as is the case now, as it would be significantly more practical. Sure, I see the point. But please remember all the modules that are in the core distribution which had/have no active maintainer and which nobody understands anymore. Look at, say, mod_rewrite, it was just plain broken over 10 httpd versions or so. It's even not fully documented yet (and was written 1996 ...). Did anyone count all the '###', 'XXX' and 'TODO' marks in the code, we already maintain? Oh, and there's also bugzilla: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_status=RESOLVEDbug_status=VERIFIEDemail1=emailtype1=substringemailassigned_to1=1email2=emailtype2=substringemailreporter2=1bugidtype=includebug_id=changedin=votes=chfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=product=Apache+httpd-1.3product=Apache+httpd-2.0short_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrlong_desc=long_desc_type=allwordssubstrbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrkeywords=keywords_type=anywordsfield0-0-0=nooptype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=newqueryname=order=bugs.bug_id 892 bugs found at time of this writing (hope the link won't break). Where's the user base of mod_imap (installed by default) or mod_cern_meta or the old outdated NCSA config directives? We add and add and add code -- which is not actually bad. But where's the man with the broom? Just to make sure, I'm not finally against adding a new module. But IMHO the much better way should be to improve the integration of TP modules rather than to put all of them in the core distribution. Yes, I know, I'm one of the guys who could help to change those things, if there'd be more time (see the problem we *already* have?). n just my 0.02 EUR d P.S.: please don't take my words as harsh as they may sound, my English is just ... technical ;-) -- Solides und umfangreiches Buch -- aus einer Rezension http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:58:00AM -0400, Manni Wood wrote: The real trick is getting Apache to serve all of the static content, and getting tomcat to deal with only servlets and jsps. I notice in all of the documentation I find for mod_jk, an entire directory (/examples/* being everyone's favourite) is mapped to Tomcat, so that even requests for images are passed back to tomcat, rather than being taken care of Apache directly. I haven't looked at the docs for a while, perhaps they overemphasize that and don't spend enough time discussing how to let apache server static content. I run a number of Apache/Tomcat production systems where Apache serves all the static content and only requests for dynamic content (servlets/jsp) are passed to Tomcat using mod_jk. Regards, Glenn
Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
André Malo wrote: Where's the user base of mod_imap (installed by default) or mod_cern_meta or the old outdated NCSA config directives? We add and add and add code -- which is not actually bad. But where's the man with the broom? The issue of unmaintained code is an important issue, but not one which should stop us considering new code. Whether mod_rewrite is maintained or not has nothing to do with a potential proxy_ajp, a module which by virtue of the volume of the discussion on it is certainly not going to have any maintenance issues any time soon. :) But at the end of the day guys with brooms are not what is important, it is the end users, whether there are any, and whether they're satisfied. If the code works and the users are happy, there is no need for a broom. Just to make sure, I'm not finally against adding a new module. But IMHO the much better way should be to improve the integration of TP modules rather than to put all of them in the core distribution. Thing is it's easier for end users to not have to mess around with third party builds if it can possibly be avoided, and it's the needs of the end users who are the most important, not the developers. The fact that the current module has to be built separately is a huge issue for the users of the module, making such a module a built in addition to proxy will make people's lives easier. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
