Petr Sumbera wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
>
>> Ah, I see. Still, when it comes time to do "tomcat6," it'll look a
>> little confusing to have "tomcat55" in there, so I'd prefer just "5."
>
> Ok, let's use "tomcat5".
We used to have just /usr/apache2 now we have /usr/apache2/2.2 and SMF
servic
John Plocher wrote:
> Petr Sumbera wrote:
>> James Carlson wrote:
http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/generic_howto/workers.html
>>> OK; so matching all of this up is "merely" a user configuration
>>> problem, right?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> This seems to be a huge architectural hole - things can't
John Plocher wrote:
> Petr Sumbera wrote:
>> John Plocher wrote:
>>> Petr Sumbera wrote:
Tomcat is started (beside manually) via Apache 1.3 init script
>>>
>>> What about Apache 2.x - how does this work with that version?
>>
>> Answer is simple. It doesn't work.
>
> OK, but...
>
>>
>> Tomca
James Carlson wrote:
> Petr Sumbera writes:
+ /usr/apache/libexec/mod_jk.so uncommitted Apache Tomcat connector
>>> I'm a little confused by that. Does this mean that the mod_jserv
>>> mentioned in 2002/009 remains in place, and will continue to be used
>>> for Tomcat 4.0? (I'm unsure beca
Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
> What level of support can one expect for Tomcat (managed, I think, is the
> current value)
Yes, Tomcat support is managed (as majority of all open source programs
in Solaris).
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/freeware/
Petr
Peter Tribble wrote:
>> We need to *try* to look into our crystal balls to believe if Tomcat
>> will follow a paradigm
>> of "no incomatibilities in Tomcat Minor releases).
>>
>> Also, if the community was to create a compatible 5.6 version, what
>> would we do?
>
> As a user who has deployed ess
John Plocher wrote:
> Petr Sumbera wrote:
>> Tomcat is started (beside manually) via Apache 1.3 init script
>
> What about Apache 2.x - how does this work with that version?
Answer is simple. It doesn't work.
Tomcat was introduced when there was no Apache 2. Tomcat is located in
Apache 1.3 sub
>James Carlson wrote:
>
>> Ah, I see. Still, when it comes time to do "tomcat6," it'll look a
>> little confusing to have "tomcat55" in there, so I'd prefer just "5."
>
>Ok, let's use "tomcat5".
>
>Note (which is not directly related to this case):
>
>"
>I believe for Nevada we should try to make
James Carlson wrote:
> Ah, I see. Still, when it comes time to do "tomcat6," it'll look a
> little confusing to have "tomcat55" in there, so I'd prefer just "5."
Ok, let's use "tomcat5".
Note (which is not directly related to this case):
"
I believe for Nevada we should try to make Tomcat inde
John Plocher writes:
> Petr Sumbera wrote:
> > James Carlson wrote:
> >>> http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/generic_howto/workers.html
> >> OK; so matching all of this up is "merely" a user configuration
> >> problem, right?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> This seems to be a huge architectural hole - thin
Petr Sumbera wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
>>> http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/generic_howto/workers.html
>> OK; so matching all of this up is "merely" a user configuration
>> problem, right?
>
> Yes.
This seems to be a huge architectural hole - things can't work out of the
box without th
Petr Sumbera writes:
> > Certainly when we talk about tomcat versions in the day job,
> > it's '5.5' not '5'. (We wouldn't ever want to accidentally get
> > tripped up by 5.0.) So to me 'tomcat55' looks quite natural :-)
>
> Exactly as Peter wrote. We cannot expect anything else beside 5.5 in
> v
Petr Sumbera wrote:
> John Plocher wrote:
>> Petr Sumbera wrote:
>>> Tomcat is started (beside manually) via Apache 1.3 init script
>>
>> What about Apache 2.x - how does this work with that version?
>
> Answer is simple. It doesn't work.
OK, but...
>
> Tomcat was introduced when there was no
Petr Sumbera writes:
> >> + /usr/apache/libexec/mod_jk.so uncommitted Apache Tomcat connector
> >
> > I'm a little confused by that. Does this mean that the mod_jserv
> > mentioned in 2002/009 remains in place, and will continue to be used
> > for Tomcat 4.0? (I'm unsure because that case seem
On Jan 31, 2008 8:34 PM, Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> Petr Sumbera wrote:
> >> I ask because the "tomcat55" path name seems odd to me. I would have
> >> expected "tomcat5" here ... and dealing with a path that changes again
> >> in the future would probably be annoying.
> >
> > I have no problem with
James Carlson wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski writes:
>> Update to Apache Tomcat 4.1 which is still being sporadically supported
>> for security problems or to community fully supported version 5.5 (which
>> is now in Nevada) would require users to recompile their application and
>> possibly deal with sev
Petr Sumbera writes:
> Tomcat is community software and we cannot be 100% sure. But it seems
> that move from 4.0->4.1 was rather unusual (they changed even a name
> (Jakarta/Apache):
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/users at tomcat.apache.org/msg37336.html
OK, that's what I was expecting here.
Petr Sumbera wrote:
>> I ask because the "tomcat55" path name seems odd to me. I would have
>> expected "tomcat5" here ... and dealing with a path that changes again
>> in the future would probably be annoying.
>
> I have no problem with changing of the path. But from information we
> have we can
Petr Sumbera wrote:
> Tomcat is started (beside manually) via Apache 1.3 init script
What about Apache 2.x - how does this work with that version?
-John
Joseph Kowalski writes:
> Update to Apache Tomcat 4.1 which is still being sporadically supported
> for security problems or to community fully supported version 5.5 (which
> is now in Nevada) would require users to recompile their application and
> possibly deal with several other incompatibilitie
20 matches
Mail list logo
