On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:55:29AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the goals of mod_jk2 is to go further and be able to operate with
only 'standard' apache directives and configuration ( i.e. Location and
SetHandler ). That'll be much faster and easier to integrate - but even
more
For example, mod_jk won't know that we want
Tomcat to process a filter chain against a directory unless we've done a
JkMount for that tree, whereas it would know that Tomcat needs to process
a
JSP page. On the other hand, mod_webapp would know about the filter
chain
because the resources
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
AIUI, mod_webapp has been easier to configure; mod_jk offers load balancing,
The configuration is the same, for the 'basic' things:
WebAppDeploy examples /examples
is arguably as easy as:
JkMount /examples/* tomcat
And has the same effect (i.e.
I believe that the official stance is that mod_webapp will be the future
of
Apache-tomcat connectors, and it will receive performance and feature
improvements whereas ...
This appears to be one of the most common myths regarding Tomcat connectors.
The real official stance appears to be that
For example, mod_jk won't know that we want
Tomcat to process a filter chain against a directory unless we've done a
JkMount for that tree, whereas it would know that Tomcat needs to process a
JSP page. On the other hand, mod_webapp would know about the filter chain
because the resources
mod_jk supports load balancing across several tomcat servers and also
supports serving static content from Apache and *.jsp from tomcat.
mod_webapp does not support load balancing, and the decision to
forward requests to tomcat are based on whole directories, you cannot
use wildcards such as
Cynthia -
Here are a couple tomcat-user postings on the differences. They might help:
http://www.mail-archive.com/tomcat-user%40jakarta.apache.org/msg50263.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/tomcat-user%40jakarta.apache.org/msg49707.html
They are not quite solid, but they are something. I am
