Henri Gomez wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
All (except Costin) developers has to say something, so my conclusion is
that we are not dead after all ;)
I'm alive as well, and I have something to say - I spent last few
weekends playing with coyote and tomcat, probably in few w
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
All (except Costin) developers has to say something, so my conclusion is
that we are not dead after all ;)
I'm alive as well, and I have something to say - I spent last few
weekends playing with coyote and tomcat, probably in fe
Costin Manolache wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
All (except Costin) developers has to say something, so my conclusion is
that we are not dead after all ;)
I'm alive as well, and I have something to say - I spent last few
weekends playing with coyote and tomcat, probably in few weeks I'll have
som
Costin Manolache wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
All (except Costin) developers has to say something, so my conclusion is
that we are not dead after all ;)
I'm alive as well, and I have something to say - I spent last few
weekends playing with coyote and tomcat, probably in few weeks I'll
have som
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
All (except Costin) developers has to say something, so my conclusion is
that we are not dead after all ;)
I'm alive as well, and I have something to say - I spent last few
weekends playing with coyote and tomcat, probably in few weeks I'll have
something working and I'll g
David Rees wrote:
That is the reason I have stuck with mod_jk instead of moving to mod_jk2,
a quick look at the mod_jk2 docs makes my eyes glaze over, and mod_jk
works just fine for my usage...
If it helps any the docs don't seem to be in sync with the code either...
--
Andy Armstrong
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> There is a learning cliff with mod_jk2 that many I feel try to climb, and
> don't make it. They then tomcat gives them a bad taste.
>
> KISS - the easier it is to do a simple config (and at the same time have
> flexibility to do a complicated one) the better.
That is
> -Original Message-
> From: Henri Gomez
>
> Well I'd like to see the JK3 or whatever will name the new
> module to be much more simpler and with less code.
>
Bingo!
I'm trying over and over again to 'push' something like 'zero-config', not
depandant of any current container.
Just im
Henri Gomez wrote:
Well I'd like to see the JK3 or whatever will name the new module to be
much more simpler and with less code.
+1 to that. It really has the feel of something that's more complex than
it should be at the moment.
--
Andy Armstrong
-
Mladen Turk wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Henri Gomez
Of course all that sounds like JK3, but ...
Did you see my post about a simpler module specific for now
to Apache 2.x (2.0/2.1), may be something which could be
included in standard Apache 2.x distribution which will save
us hou
Tim Funk wrote:
If this is all wishlists .. it'd be nice if we could set the worker and
handler via mod_rewrite.
Intead of
JkMount /*.jsp loadbalancer
Say:
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} *\.jsp
RewriteRule ^(.+)$$1 [T=jk,E=worker:loaderbalance]
[If my syntax above is correct]
I was thin
Tim Funk wrote:
If this is all wishlists .. it'd be nice if we could set the worker and
handler via mod_rewrite.
Intead of
JkMount /*.jsp loadbalancer
Say:
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} *\.jsp
RewriteRule ^(.+)$$1 [T=jk,E=worker:loaderbalance]
[If my syntax above is correct]
Rewrite re
have
flexibility to do a complicated one) the better.
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Funk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 15 July 2004 15:25
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: Re: Some JK2 ideas v.2
>
>
> I wasn't thinking of a dependency on mod_rewrite, but a
I wasn't thinking of a dependency on mod_rewrite, but a way to to configure
JK based on common data structures that may be set by mod_rewrite.
Its actually a restatement of this:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=tomcat-dev&m=108987495224170&w=2
-Tim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would do you think a de
Jess Holle wrote:
Both approaches have their advantages
Just don't loose the multi-file configuration flexibility given by
JkUriSet.
Gack, I meant "lose". I did one of my own pet-peeve typos
Also, having either XML-based configuration *or* pure .conf
configuration would be more easily un
Both approaches have their advantages
Just don't loose the multi-file configuration flexibility given by JkUriSet.
Also, having either XML-based configuration *or* pure .conf
configuration would be more easily understood than the current
workers2.properties details.
Mladen Turk wrote:
-O
> If this is all wishlists .. it'd be nice if we could set the
> worker and
> handler via mod_rewrite.
>
> Intead of
>JkMount /*.jsp loadbalancer
> Say:
>RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} *\.jsp
>RewriteRule ^(.+)$$1 [T=jk,E=worker:loaderbalance]
>
> [If my syntax above is correct]
If this is all wishlists .. it'd be nice if we could set the worker and
handler via mod_rewrite.
Intead of
JkMount /*.jsp loadbalancer
Say:
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} *\.jsp
RewriteRule ^(.+)$$1 [T=jk,E=worker:loaderbalance]
[If my syntax above is correct]
-Tim
Mladen Turk wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Henri Gomez
> >
> > Of course all that sounds like JK3, but ...
>
> Did you see my post about a simpler module specific for now
> to Apache 2.x (2.0/2.1), may be something which could be
> included in standard Apache 2.x distribution which will save
> us
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
All (except Costin) developers has to say something, so my conclusion is
that we are not dead after all ;)
Seems that the major obstacle is the configuration, so I propose that we
forget that for a while, and make a
'generalized' environment that will sattisfy all the 'needs'
Hi,
All (except Costin) developers has to say something, so my conclusion is
that we are not dead after all ;)
Seems that the major obstacle is the configuration, so I propose that we
forget that for a while, and make a
'generalized' environment that will sattisfy all the 'needs'.
That environmen
21 matches
Mail list logo