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
--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
--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
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 hatc
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
unmainta
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
--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the old outdated NCSA config directives?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, o
Henri Gomez wrote:
I made some benchs on my Linux Fedora Core 2
on a P4 2.8ghz / 1Gb RAM :
Apache 2 alone 1202 req/s
TC/Coyote 883 req/s
One thing I noticed when looking at Tomcat 5.0.x is that its default,
static-file-delivering servlet does a stat(2) of each path prefix leading
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:
>
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
I made some benchs on my Linux Fedora Core 2
on a P4 2.8ghz / 1Gb RAM :
Apache 2.0.50 in
- Apache 2.0.50 alone (simple html file)
- TC 3.3.2/Coyote 1.1
- Apache 2.0.50 + jk 1.2.6 + TC 3.3.2/jk2
JkMount /examples/* local
worker.local.port=8009
worker.local.host=localhost
worker.local.type=ajp13
w
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 to
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 contra
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 wil
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. I
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
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 mak
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. I
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 us
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 mak
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
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
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 con
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 whi
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
* 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 us
OTECTED]
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 t
ts 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
*
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
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 ar
velopers 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
*
Filip Hanik - Dev wrote:
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,
* "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 di
rom: 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 advan
m: 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 A
* 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
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 acc
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_pro
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
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 slightl
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 chan
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 fr
, 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 loo
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
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 migh
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 woul
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 eve
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 f
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
uld 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,
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 v
, 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 "
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 %{REQUE
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 t
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 a
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 co
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.
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 ma
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}
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
sage-
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
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?
> W
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
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 als
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
th
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
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 lo
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
th
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 als
D]
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 shoul
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 the
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
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
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
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
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: Invitat
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 f
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
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 fea
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 feat
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
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
m
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.
The goal of this new module :
- 100% Apache 2.x module
- Easy integration with existing Apache 2.x modules
and dire
83 matches
Mail list logo