Re: Discussion mod_jk and mod_dir interaction

2007-01-30 Thread Rainer Jung
Hi Mladen, Mladen Turk wrote: Rainer Jung wrote: Hi, I want to find out how to correctly fix BZ 41430 and 36121. They have to do with the way mod_dir and mod_jk interact. Before fixing the code I find it necessary to define the correct behaviour, which seems to be non-trivial. It is

Re: Discussion mod_jk and mod_dir interaction

2007-01-30 Thread Mladen Turk
Rainer Jung wrote: Hi Mladen, Things like DirectoryIndex are completely useless and further more breaks the security, because the Tomcat must serve the default content. I simply don't understand, what this means functionally, i.e. how DirectoryIndex and ForwardDirectories should work with

RE: Discussion mod_jk and mod_dir interaction

2007-01-30 Thread Giampaolo Tomassoni
Hi, I want to find out how to correctly fix BZ 41430 and 36121. They have to do with the way mod_dir and mod_jk interact. Before fixing the code I find it necessary to define the correct behaviour, which seems to be non-trivial. The behaviour needs to be described depending on

Re: Discussion mod_jk and mod_dir interaction

2007-01-30 Thread Mladen Turk
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: Finally, it seems to me that mod_jk doesn't map a request to tomcat as a sub-request, but instead seems to tweek the req-main field, which may probably create the kind of problems reported in BZ 36121. I'm not an expert of the apache req structure nor of the mod_jk

RE: Discussion mod_jk and mod_dir interaction

2007-01-30 Thread Giampaolo Tomassoni
From: Mladen Turk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: Finally, it seems to me that mod_jk doesn't map a request to tomcat as a sub-request, but instead seems to tweek the req-main field, which may probably create the kind of problems reported in BZ 36121. I'm not an

Re: Discussion mod_jk and mod_dir interaction

2007-01-30 Thread Mladen Turk
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote: Any other 'better' integration would probably require patching Apache core, and thats IMHO unfeasible by majority of users. Which one? Checking the 404 response? If mod_jk adopts sub-requests to Tomcat, why should Apache get patched? Or if you mean the JkMount

RE: Discussion mod_jk and mod_dir interaction

2007-01-30 Thread Giampaolo Tomassoni
Look, I don't wish to go into discussion with you, because you obviously already have your perspective (IMHO wrong). ?!?! Well, of corse I have mine... Static content delivery by Apache requires thorough application design so that it can be served outside the application itself. No,

Re: Discussion mod_jk and mod_dir interaction

2007-01-30 Thread Rainer Jung
I think we agree, that DirectoryIndex should not replace the welcome-file list on the Tomcat side. This means at least: if non of the entries in the DirectoryIndex list is visible by Apache, it should not try to prepend any of them to the URL and send to Tomcat, even if this would match a

Discussion mod_jk and mod_dir interaction

2007-01-29 Thread Rainer Jung
Hi, I want to find out how to correctly fix BZ 41430 and 36121. They have to do with the way mod_dir and mod_jk interact. Before fixing the code I find it necessary to define the correct behaviour, which seems to be non-trivial. The behaviour needs to be described depending on

Re: Discussion mod_jk and mod_dir interaction

2007-01-29 Thread Mladen Turk
Rainer Jung wrote: Hi, I want to find out how to correctly fix BZ 41430 and 36121. They have to do with the way mod_dir and mod_jk interact. Before fixing the code I find it necessary to define the correct behaviour, which seems to be non-trivial. It is very trivial. The mod_jk is proxy