RE: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-05-03 Thread costinm
On Fri, 3 May 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote: > >1. The 'worker' name is deprecated. It refers to too many > >things in mod_jk, and causes too much confusion ( i.e. it > >is a 'handler', coresponds to a jvmRoute, a protocol, a > >channel ). > > +1, worker term should be related to a processing job/thre

RE: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-05-03 Thread GOMEZ Henri
Not too late for comments ? >This proposal will cover the 'workers'. > >1. The 'worker' name is deprecated. It refers to too many >things in mod_jk, and causes too much confusion ( i.e. it >is a 'handler', coresponds to a jvmRoute, a protocol, a >channel ). +1, worker term should be related to

Re: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-05-03 Thread Bernd Koecke
Hi Costin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Bernd, > > First, many thanks for your help :-) > > your welcome, its a lot of fun :) >>No, I think not :). I checked it yesterday. With some additional log statements >>in the validate function of jk_lb_worker.c you get the value _inf_ for the >>lb

Re: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-05-03 Thread costinm
Hi Bernd, First, many thanks for your help :-) > No, I think not :). I checked it yesterday. With some additional log statements > in the validate function of jk_lb_worker.c you get the value _inf_ for the > lb_factor and lb_value (line 434-444). Because if it would be set to 1, my > config h

[PATHC] jakarta-tomcat-connectors Re: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-05-03 Thread Bernd Koecke
Hi Costin, now here is my patch. It is very small and it works. And we don't need additional config flags. When the lb_value is read from the config file it is checked against zero. With this a flag in lb_worker is set so that the get_max_lb-function could decide if this worker should be used

Re: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-05-03 Thread Bernd Koecke
Hi Costin, May be I checked out the wrong repository. I checked out jakarta-tomcat-connectors with the CVSROOT=:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/cvspublic Now to the details, see below. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 2 May 2002, Bernd Koecke wrote: > > >>misunderstood it. After you said

AW: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-05-02 Thread Hans Schmid
> -Ursprungliche Nachricht- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2002 19:35 > An: Tomcat Developers List > Betreff: Re: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance > > > On Thu, 2 May 2002, Bernd Koecke wrote: > > >

Re: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-05-02 Thread costinm
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Bernd Koecke wrote: > misunderstood it. After you said that my patch is included a had a closer look > at mod_jk. I can't see anything of my code but I found the special meaning of > the zero lb_factor/lb_value. It seems that I didn't understand it right at the > first time

Re: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-05-02 Thread Bernd Koecke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 2 May 2002, Amund Elstad wrote: > > >>(1) all requests without a session are routed to a specific tomcat instance >>(if that instance is working). > > > That has been added, and it should work in both jk1 and jk2 ( I don't > remember who sent the patch, but

RE: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-05-02 Thread costinm
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Amund Elstad wrote: > (1) all requests without a session are routed to a specific tomcat instance > (if that instance is working). That has been added, and it should work in both jk1 and jk2 ( I don't remember who sent the patch, but I remember adding it ). If it doesn't w

RE: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-05-02 Thread Amund Elstad
Hi, My understanding of the old lb-worker is that although you can tweak its behavior using load-balancing factors, it does not theoretically cover: (1) all requests without a session are routed to a specific tomcat instance (if that instance is working). (2) Tomcat instances in standby or "sof

Re: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-04-30 Thread costinm
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Bernd Koecke wrote: > some weeks ago I send a patch for mod_jk for an only routing lb_worker. A few > days later I sent the docu. Henry Gomez said, that it should be commited. But it > I think it isn't in the repository. But its the same with me here, to mutch > work for

Re: PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-04-30 Thread Bernd Koecke
Hi Costin, some weeks ago I send a patch for mod_jk for an only routing lb_worker. A few days later I sent the docu. Henry Gomez said, that it should be commited. But it I think it isn't in the repository. But its the same with me here, to mutch work for to less time :). Again an example of

PROPOSAL: mod_jk2: Group/Instance

2002-04-29 Thread costinm
One of the major goals of mod_jk2 is simpler configuration. This proposal will cover the 'workers'. 1. The 'worker' name is deprecated. It refers to too many things in mod_jk, and causes too much confusion ( i.e. it is a 'handler', coresponds to a jvmRoute, a protocol, a channel ). 2. We'll us