On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >I think Dan is right on this one - improving the configuration
> >of mod_jk
> >is probably the most important thing, and merging with mod_webapp and
> >porting it's protocol and config mechanism would be a good way
> >to do that.
>
> I agree that int
>I think Dan is right on this one - improving the configuration
>of mod_jk
>is probably the most important thing, and merging with mod_webapp and
>porting it's protocol and config mechanism would be a good way
>to do that.
I agree that integrating mod_webapp functionnalities is not
a priority
Henri,
I think Dan is right on this one - improving the configuration of mod_jk
is probably the most important thing, and merging with mod_webapp and
porting it's protocol and config mechanism would be a good way to do that.
I think the best way to do that would be a revolution ( like jasper34
In terms of integrating mod_jk/mod_webapp, I think this might be worthwhile
-- specifically, mod_jk was built to handle a variety of protocols (ajp12,
ajp13, etc.). So writing a protocol handler for the mod_webapp protocol
would give a lot of benefits -- load-balancing, support for a variety of w
> Why not use mod_webapp/mod_jk to start the
> web-connector sub-project allowing us to remove many question
> related to connectors from Tomcat user/dev lists ?
>
> The same web-connector project could be used against
> Tomcat 3.2/3.3/4.0 but not be restricted to Tomcat.
> Any project unde
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> * Configuration complexity - The above issues can often be dealt with
> by tediously configuring everything twice (once in web.xml and once
> in httpd.conf). A better approach would be to make ajp12/ajp13
> auto-configure Apache from the we
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:
> > mod_jk is the de-facto standard to link a web server (not only
> > Apache) to tomcat. mod_webapp is really new and having it
> > incompatible with mod_jk will raise more questions and requests
> > than necessary.
>
> Huh? mod_jk is not 100% compatible
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 4/17/01 5:12 PM, "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > [ ] I want to have a ajp12/ajp13 in Tomcat 4.0 ?
>
> Is the requirements of the Servlet API technically feasible for allowing
> this to exist?
>
There are some very signific
on 4/17/01 5:12 PM, "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mod_jk is the de-facto standard to link a web server (not only
> Apache) to tomcat. mod_webapp is really new and having it
> incompatible with mod_jk will raise more questions and requests
> than necessary.
Huh? mod_jk is not 100% c
>> 3) You still didn't tell us what you think into merging mod_webapp
>> and mod_jk.
>
>And I'll continue to be silent on that... As I don't really
>want to start another flamewar...
>I've been thru enough already on that, and
>all I can say
>is that I'll let the people on this list (but me)
Pier P. Fumagalli at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> GOMEZ Henri at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Fine to see mod_webapp back to life :)
>
> Well, I don't really know how happy I am...
That sounds not right... I'm happy to have something working, I'm not happy
about how we ended up there... (yeah..
GOMEZ Henri at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Fine to see mod_webapp back to life :)
Well, I don't really know how happy I am...
> 1) You added many features interesting in building (autoconf, apr)
> which we could study to adapt to mod_jk (at least autoconf).
That's what was expected, I believe.
12 matches
Mail list logo
