At 12:59 PM 9/2/2004, Mladen Turk wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>>Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
>>>future 2.0.x release
>>[...] please don't expect them
>>to sympathize when n.x.z -> n.x.(z+1) starts breaking things, this
>>undermines the confidence
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in
2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to
Tomcats.
Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
future 2.0.x release
Admins understand why n.x -> (
At 09:25 AM 9/2/2004, Henri Gomez wrote:
>Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in
>2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to
>Tomcats.
>
>Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
>future 2.0.x release, since Gra
Bad news for me and many others since without AJP support included in
2.0.x, users will still require to have mod_jk to link there HTTPD to
Tomcats.
Could we hope the dev team to relax the situation for mod_proxy/ajp in
future 2.0.x release, since Graham, Mladen and Jean-Frederic works
hard to mak
