Re: Mod_jk for Apache2.

[Simon Stewart]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 07:39:55AM +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 19:49, Simon Stewart wrote:
> 
> > Another spanner: the default anonymous cvs checkout of the current
> > mod_jk2 doesn't build on linux. This is because the OS doesn't appear
> > to get detected properly, meaning that the system dependent jni_md.h
> > file isn't included in the native build's includes. This is probably a
> > known issue, but a quick search doesn't appear to reveal any
> > hits. Shall I post a proper bug report?
> 
> By all means. Unless, of course, you can find such bug in Bugzilla
> already. If you attach a patch with the bug report, it will get fixed
> sooner...

Will have a poke about tomorrow. The hardest part is to determine how
the discovery of the system type is failing. I suspect that once this
has been fixed everything else will fall into place, since the error
is probably caused by the include path not being built properly with
all the 'if="linux"'s failing.

Famous last words.

Regards,

Simon

-- 
The world's coming to an end. Log off and leave in an orderly fashion.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Mod_jk for Apache2.

[Bojan Smojver]

On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 19:49, Simon Stewart wrote:

> Another spanner: the default anonymous cvs checkout of the current
> mod_jk2 doesn't build on linux. This is because the OS doesn't appear
> to get detected properly, meaning that the system dependent jni_md.h
> file isn't included in the native build's includes. This is probably a
> known issue, but a quick search doesn't appear to reveal any
> hits. Shall I post a proper bug report?

By all means. Unless, of course, you can find such bug in Bugzilla
already. If you attach a patch with the bug report, it will get fixed
sooner...

Bojan


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Mod_jk for Apache2.

[Simon Stewart]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 07:11:51PM +0100, Dev Zero G Ltd wrote:
> Without wishing to throw a spanner in the works :) I would like to point 
> out that we still have not been able to successfully build mod_jk, nor 
> make it work with the FreeBSD 4.x, Apache 2 and Tomcat 4.0.4 configuration.

Another spanner: the default anonymous cvs checkout of the current
mod_jk2 doesn't build on linux. This is because the OS doesn't appear
to get detected properly, meaning that the system dependent jni_md.h
file isn't included in the native build's includes. This is probably a
known issue, but a quick search doesn't appear to reveal any
hits. Shall I post a proper bug report?

Regards,

Simon

-- 
Pronoia = the suspicion that others are conspiring behind
  your back to HELP you.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Mod_jk for Apache2.

[Henri Gomez]

Quoting Bill Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


> > > Should we update all
> > > of the possible tomcat releases (currently 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 4.0.4, 4.1.7
> > > Beta) when Apache updates?

Oups, forgot to say that mod_jk will be release in the jtc builds dir, 
(http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/release/)
and so will be available for ALL tomcat versions. It was one of the goal of 
jtc :)

It was discussed many times ago to drop/remove the jk support from tomcat 
repositories (at least from TC 3.3.x)


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Mod_jk for Apache2.

[Henri Gomez]

Quoting Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 02:36, Mike Anderson wrote:
> > Now that Apache 2.0 has been released, when/how should we deliver the
> > mod_jk plugin (the 1.2.0 version from jtc) for Apache 2.0.  Since the
> > magic number changes between builds, we can't put a version out there
> > that will work with all possible versions.  Should we just try and keep
> > up with the current Apache 2.0 (currently 2.0.39)?
> 
> Anything below 2.0.39 has security issues and should not be used in
> production. So, it shouldn't even be supported. 2.0.39 should be the
> starting point.

yes, and 2.0.39 is an official release, we should release a mod_jk at each 
Apache 2.0 release. And may be at one time, httpd team will no more make the 
version number matching mandatory for modules.

> > Should we update all
> > of the possible tomcat releases (currently 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 4.0.4, 4.1.7
> > Beta) when Apache updates?
> 
> I reckon that's going to be a lot of work. Unless there are security
> issues, we should focus on what's current. In other words, the current
> stable version from each branch. Anything else, build from source or use
> the old version.
> 
> If someone contributes a binary, then by all means, it should be
> published, but otherwise it shouldn't be a target.

When I'll be back from hollidays, I'll tag mod_jk 1.2.0 and release a source 
tarball. And after that I'll make the binaries for Apache 1.3 (with and without 
SSL) and Apache 2.0 for Linux (i386 and maybe also PowerPC). I think Nacho 
could produce at that time the IIS redirector, Mike netware and others Apache 
1.3/2.0 for Windows (I could take a look in making a mod_jk for cygwin).

BTW, I return to my wet paint ;[


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Mod_jk for Apache2.

[Bill Barker]

- Original Message -
From: "Bojan Smojver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tomcat Dev List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Mod_jk for Apache2.


> On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 02:36, Mike Anderson wrote:
> > Now that Apache 2.0 has been released, when/how should we deliver the
> > mod_jk plugin (the 1.2.0 version from jtc) for Apache 2.0.  Since the
> > magic number changes between builds, we can't put a version out there
> > that will work with all possible versions.  Should we just try and keep
> > up with the current Apache 2.0 (currently 2.0.39)?
>
> Anything below 2.0.39 has security issues and should not be used in
> production. So, it shouldn't even be supported. 2.0.39 should be the
> starting point.
>
> > Should we update all
> > of the possible tomcat releases (currently 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 4.0.4, 4.1.7
> > Beta) when Apache updates?
>

As we all know, 3.2.4 is deprecated.  3.3.x doesn't include Apache-2
support.  4.1.x uses Jk2 by default, so this really isn't as bad as it
looks.  However, I'm +1 on updating Jk 1.2 to the latest GA Apache-2 release
at least until Jk2 gets any where close to GA.

> I reckon that's going to be a lot of work. Unless there are security
> issues, we should focus on what's current. In other words, the current
> stable version from each branch. Anything else, build from source or use
> the old version.
>
> If someone contributes a binary, then by all means, it should be
> published, but otherwise it shouldn't be a target.
>
> Bojan
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Mod_jk for Apache2.

[Bojan Smojver]

On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 02:36, Mike Anderson wrote:
> Now that Apache 2.0 has been released, when/how should we deliver the
> mod_jk plugin (the 1.2.0 version from jtc) for Apache 2.0.  Since the
> magic number changes between builds, we can't put a version out there
> that will work with all possible versions.  Should we just try and keep
> up with the current Apache 2.0 (currently 2.0.39)?

Anything below 2.0.39 has security issues and should not be used in
production. So, it shouldn't even be supported. 2.0.39 should be the
starting point.

> Should we update all
> of the possible tomcat releases (currently 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 4.0.4, 4.1.7
> Beta) when Apache updates?

I reckon that's going to be a lot of work. Unless there are security
issues, we should focus on what's current. In other words, the current
stable version from each branch. Anything else, build from source or use
the old version.

If someone contributes a binary, then by all means, it should be
published, but otherwise it shouldn't be a target.

Bojan


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Mod_jk for Apache2.

[Dev Zero G Ltd]

Without wishing to throw a spanner in the works :) I would like to point 
out that we still have not been able to successfully build mod_jk, nor 
make it work with the FreeBSD 4.x, Apache 2 and Tomcat 4.0.4 configuration.

We have, however set aside a full time resource dealing with this issue 
in-house - however, the developer is not an expert, though is making 
some progress.

Should we register as a comitter? We have already submitted a couple of 
patches that Henry Gomez has kindly commited.

Just thought we'd let you know!


Henri Gomez wrote:
> Quoting Mike Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> Hi Mike, happy to see you here again ;)
> 
>>Now that Apache 2.0 has been released, when/how should we deliver the
>>mod_jk plugin (the 1.2.0 version from jtc) for Apache 2.0.  Since the
>>magic number changes between builds, we can't put a version out there
>>that will work with all possible versions.  Should we just try and keep
>>up with the current Apache 2.0 (currently 2.0.39)?  Should we update all
>>of the possible tomcat releases (currently 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 4.0.4, 4.1.7
>>Beta) when Apache updates? I'm just starting to get a lot of requests
>>for a posted binary for NetWare and wondered what the general concensus
>>was.  I checked, and the only Apache 2.0 binary that I could find was
>>for Linux and I'm not even sure which version of 2.0 it is supposed to
>>work with.
> 
> 
> FYI, mod_jk 1.2.0 was planned for release some weeks again and I was promoted as
> Release Manager. Some problems have prevented me to make that release in July.
> Part of the problems are now solved, but I'll be in holidays for 3 weeks so the
> release is now scheduled for late August.
> 
> mod_jk 1.2.0 is stable, build is easy via configure/make and there is no
> blocking bugs reported. The only limitation is the mod_dir support, see mails
> from Bojan but I'm sure they will be fixed during the next 3 weeks.
> 
> We also need you to check for Netware compatibility.
> 
> There is Linux version of Apache 2.0.39 in RPM format at falsehope.com :
> 
> http://ftp.falsehope.com/home/gomez/apache2/
> 
> Also I recommand stick with the latest Apache 2.0 release, 2.0.39.
> 
> We'll upload mod_jk 1.2.0 binaries to :
> 
> http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/release/v1.2.0/
> 
> And add this URL to tomcat 3.2.x, 3.3.x, 4.0.x and 4.1.x documentations.
> 
> 
> See you all in 3 weeks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 
> 
> 




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: