Re: Which Connector for Tomcat 4.0.3 - mod_webapp or mod_jk

[Simon Stewart]

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:55:29AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> One of the goals of mod_jk2 is to go further and be able to operate with
> only 'standard' apache directives and configuration ( i.e.  and 
> SetHandler ). That'll be much faster and easier to integrate - but even
> more verbose. However that's just one option, for advanced use.

Does this also include doing away with the badly documented
workers.properties files too? I'd love to be able to configure my
apache modules using the apache config file ;)

Cheers,

Simon

-- 
"What're we gonna do tonight, Brain?" "I'd tell you, but there's a 78-char li

--
To unsubscribe:   
For additional commands: 
Troubles with the list: 

RE: Which Connector for Tomcat 4.0.3 - mod_webapp or mod_jk

[costinm]

On Thu, 2 May 2002, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> AIUI, mod_webapp has been easier to configure; mod_jk offers load balancing,

The configuration is the same, for the 'basic' things:
 WebAppDeploy examples /examples

is arguably as easy as:
 
 JkMount /examples/* tomcat

And has the same effect (i.e. current webapp behavior ).

What is complex is advanced configuration - lb, letting apache handle 
static resources, etc. 

> This really is a huge difference, if I understand the implications (without
> reading through the code).  For example, mod_jk won't know that we want
> Tomcat to process a filter chain against a directory unless we've done a
> JkMount for that tree, whereas it would know that Tomcat needs to process a
> JSP page.  On the other hand, mod_webapp would know about the filter chain
> because the resources would have been deployed as part of a web app.

mod_webapp will know that because it forwards all requests. Same is 
trivial with mod_jk, however jk does give you the option to fine tune
what resources are forwarded ( and maybe use apache where an equivalent
functionality exists ).

One of the goals of mod_jk2 is to go further and be able to operate with
only 'standard' apache directives and configuration ( i.e.  and 
SetHandler ). That'll be much faster and easier to integrate - but even
more verbose. However that's just one option, for advanced use.

Costin


--
To unsubscribe:   
For additional commands: 
Troubles with the list: 

RE: Which Connector for Tomcat 4.0.3 - mod_webapp or mod_jk

[Noel J. Bergman]

> >For example, mod_jk won't know that we want
> >Tomcat to process a filter chain against a directory unless we've done a
> >JkMount for that tree, whereas it would know that Tomcat needs to process
a
> >JSP page.  On the other hand, mod_webapp would know about the filter
chain
> >because the resources would have been deployed as part of a web app.

> This isn't quite true.  You can get the same functionality with mod_jk as
> mod_webapp by saying:

> JkMount /mycontext ajp13
> JkMount /mycontext/* ajp13
> that works *exactly* the same as:
> WebAppDeploy mycontext warpConnection /mycontext/

Which part of "unless we've done a JkMount for that tree" didn't you
understand?  I did not say that mod_jk doesn't support the facility, just
that it has to be configured properly.  Your example provides exactly what I
said would be necessary.

Having done this, Tomcat will serve up even static resources in that
context.  Which is what the deployment is asking for in this case.

--- Noel


--
To unsubscribe:   
For additional commands: 
Troubles with the list: 

RE: Which Connector for Tomcat 4.0.3 - mod_webapp or mod_jk

[Jacob Kjome]

 >For example, mod_jk won't know that we want
 >Tomcat to process a filter chain against a directory unless we've done a
 >JkMount for that tree, whereas it would know that Tomcat needs to process a
 >JSP page.  On the other hand, mod_webapp would know about the filter chain
 >because the resources would have been deployed as part of a web app.

This isn't quite true.  You can get the same functionality with mod_jk as 
mod_webapp by saying:

JkMount /mycontext ajp13
JkMount /mycontext/* ajp13

that works *exactly* the same as:

WebAppDeploy mycontext warpConnection /mycontext/

In both cases, all requests will be forwarded to Tomcat to do processing 
which makes it so you don't have to re-specify the servlet mappings you set 
in the web.xml as JkMounts like you would have to if you took the following 
approach.

JkMount /mycontext/servlet  ajp13
JkMount /mycontext/servlet/*  ajp13
JkMount /mycontext/*.jsp ajp13
JkMount /mycontext/myservletmapping ajp13


Jake

At 12:19 AM 5/2/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > I believe that the official stance is that mod_webapp will be the future
>of
> > Apache-tomcat connectors, and it will receive performance and feature
> > improvements whereas ...
>
>This appears to be one of the most common myths regarding Tomcat connectors.
>The real official stance appears to be that mod_jk2 and mod_webapp are
>competing projects from two groups of developers who don't agree with
>others' code/approach.
>
>AIUI, mod_webapp has been easier to configure; mod_jk offers load balancing,
>and doesn't pass requests for static resources to Tomcat before letting
>Apache handle them.  mod_jk2 is getting even faster and easier to configure.
>mod_webapp is getting patched to avoid passing static requests through
>Tomcat first.  mod_jk configuration is more similar to what those of us who
>used mod_jserv know.  mod_jk supports multiple worker types, including
>in-process execution of Tomcat.
>
>The biggest difference seems to be the deployment approach.  When it comes
>down to it, there is a difference between:
>
> WebAppDeploy examples warpConnection /examples/
>
>and
>
> JkMount /*.jsp  tomcat1
> JkMount /examples/* tomcat1
>
>mod_jk tells Apache about resources it should ask Tomcat to handle.
>mod_webapp tells Apache about webapps that Tomcat should handle.
>
>This really is a huge difference, if I understand the implications (without
>reading through the code).  For example, mod_jk won't know that we want
>Tomcat to process a filter chain against a directory unless we've done a
>JkMount for that tree, whereas it would know that Tomcat needs to process a
>JSP page.  On the other hand, mod_webapp would know about the filter chain
>because the resources would have been deployed as part of a web app.
>
>The respective developers are free to correct any of the above.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe:   
>For additional commands: 
>Troubles with the list: 

RE: Which Connector for Tomcat 4.0.3 - mod_webapp or mod_jk

[Noel J. Bergman]

> I believe that the official stance is that mod_webapp will be the future
of
> Apache-tomcat connectors, and it will receive performance and feature
> improvements whereas ...

This appears to be one of the most common myths regarding Tomcat connectors.
The real official stance appears to be that mod_jk2 and mod_webapp are
competing projects from two groups of developers who don't agree with
others' code/approach.

AIUI, mod_webapp has been easier to configure; mod_jk offers load balancing,
and doesn't pass requests for static resources to Tomcat before letting
Apache handle them.  mod_jk2 is getting even faster and easier to configure.
mod_webapp is getting patched to avoid passing static requests through
Tomcat first.  mod_jk configuration is more similar to what those of us who
used mod_jserv know.  mod_jk supports multiple worker types, including
in-process execution of Tomcat.

The biggest difference seems to be the deployment approach.  When it comes
down to it, there is a difference between:

WebAppDeploy examples warpConnection /examples/

and

JkMount /*.jsp  tomcat1
JkMount /examples/* tomcat1

mod_jk tells Apache about resources it should ask Tomcat to handle.
mod_webapp tells Apache about webapps that Tomcat should handle.

This really is a huge difference, if I understand the implications (without
reading through the code).  For example, mod_jk won't know that we want
Tomcat to process a filter chain against a directory unless we've done a
JkMount for that tree, whereas it would know that Tomcat needs to process a
JSP page.  On the other hand, mod_webapp would know about the filter chain
because the resources would have been deployed as part of a web app.

The respective developers are free to correct any of the above.

--- Noel


--
To unsubscribe:   
For additional commands: 
Troubles with the list: 

Re: Which Connector for Tomcat 4.0.3 - mod_webapp or mod_jk

[Jeffrey Bonevich]

Cynthia -

Here are a couple tomcat-user postings on the differences.  They might help:

http://www.mail-archive.com/tomcat-user%40jakarta.apache.org/msg50263.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/tomcat-user%40jakarta.apache.org/msg49707.html

They are not quite solid, but they are something.  I am still looking 
for a more definitive discussion myself.  Please post any you find as well.

Thanx!

jeff


Cynthia Jeness wrote:

> I searched the Tomcat and Apache site yesterday for some explanation
> and/or recommendations for the choice of connector, but a search on
> "connector" or "mod_webapp" did not seem to provide any information
> about why I would chooce one over another.  Can someone point me to the
> correct place or explain the difference between these connectors.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cynthia Jeness
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe:   
> For additional commands: 
> Troubles with the list: 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Jeffrey Bonevich
Ann Arbor, Michigan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bonevich.com

Hwæt! Wë Gär-Dena   in geär-dagum,
peod-cyninga,   prym gefrünon,
hü ða aepelingas   ellen fremedon!


--
To unsubscribe:   
For additional commands: 
Troubles with the list: 

Re: Which Connector for Tomcat 4.0.3 - mod_webapp or mod_jk

[Pascal Forget]

mod_jk supports load balancing across several tomcat servers and also
supports serving static content from Apache and *.jsp from tomcat.

mod_webapp does not support load balancing, and the decision to
forward requests to tomcat are based on whole directories, you cannot
use wildcards such as *.jsp

I believe that the official stance is that mod_webapp will be the future of
Apache-tomcat connectors, and it will receive performance and feature
improvements whereas  mod_jk represents a connector that works pretty
well in the meantime.  I personnally use mod_jk for a site that receives 2M
hits per day without a problem.

I would recommend mod_webapp if you do not need load balancing and if
your static content is in a different directory than your JSP and web apps.
And if you need load balancing, go with mod_jk.

mod_webapp was also notoriously broken on the Windows platform four months
ago, but today I don't know.  You might want to try both and decide on 
the one
that works best for you.

Good Luck,

Pascal Forget



Cynthia Jeness wrote:

>I searched the Tomcat and Apache site yesterday for some explanation
>and/or recommendations for the choice of connector, but a search on
>"connector" or "mod_webapp" did not seem to provide any information
>about why I would chooce one over another.  Can someone point me to the
>correct place or explain the difference between these connectors.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Cynthia Jeness
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe:   
>For additional commands: 
>Troubles with the list: 
>
>
>




--
To unsubscribe:   
For additional commands: 
Troubles with the list: