Dan Milstein wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I assume I'm the person interested in porting mod_jk to TC 4 (if there's anyone
>else, please get in touch with me ;-).
>
> Thank you for clarifying the issue about the difference between the 2.2 and 2.3
>specs -- I hadn't realized that.
>
> I do have a question: how would you feel about including mod_jk in TC 4 before it
>became totally 2.3 compliant? In other words, if I managed to write ajp13 and/or
>ajp12 connectors for TC 4, how would you feel about that being committed to cvs
>immediately, so that people could start using it (and using TC with various web
>servers), *before* making the extensive additions which would be necessary to bring
>it into 2.3 compliance?
>
> To my mind this would be worthwhile, and in keeping with TC 4 development in general
>-- there is the doc specifying the various degrees of "doneness" of 2.3 compliance.
>I see it as a very pragmatic path -- I believe that adding a functional web server
>connector would give many, many more people reason to start using TC 4, which can
>only be a good thing. And, I hope, that increased usage would bring more volunteer
>resources to bear on the connectors -- which could be mod_webapp or mod_jk.
>
> I ask this because I am honestly not sure how much time I can devote to the project
>-- I am hoping to write the ajp13 connector, but I am not sure if I will have the
>time to rewrite all the C code (something I'm not as expert at) to bring mod_jk into
>2.3 compliance. If I can only offer the code for the current ajp13, would that be
>something you would be comfortable with merging into the TC 4 codebase?
>
I am OK with (as opposed to enthusiastic about -- I'd personally prefer to see people
fixing mod_webapp than doing this) someone wanting to write a Tomcat 4 connector for
MOD_JK, as long as:
* Everyone understands that it's there simply for porting
and won't be compliant with the final specs
* Enough people are willing to do support for it so that it
doesn't just collect bug reports (like MOD_JK did until
you and others started working on it again)
The quickest way to accomplish this would be to mimic the organizational structure of
org.apache.catalina.connector.http.Http{Connector,Processor}, and change the way that
request properties get sent. Everything that happens to a request after that point
(i.e. after you call invoke() on the Engine) does not care where the request came from.
NOTE: In terms of timing, I'd rather see this work in the 4.1 repository so it
doesn't destabilize anything in the 4.0 beta cycle, or delay it.
>
> Thanks,
> -Dan
>
Craig
>
> "Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> >
> > GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >
> > > [finally ... a technical issue!]
> > > I still didn't understand why TC 4.0 didn't select mod_jk as
> > > their connector to WebServer. The code is clean and many bugs
> > > are removed. A web server connector is not an easy piece of cake
> > > so why reinvent the whell ?-(
> > >
> >
> > Tomcat 4.0 did not select mod_jk for several reasons. The most important ones
> > are at the top:
> >
> > * MOD_JK (like MOD_JSERV before it) has no clue what a web
> > application is. This forces you to configure many items twice --
> > once in the web.xml file and once in the Apache configuration,
> > which is a pretty serious imposition on people trying to administer
> > the combination.
> >
> > * While the 2.2 spec was silent in many areas, the 2.3 spec will
> > require an Apache+Tomcat combination to obey *all* the requirements
> > of the spec (same rules as for any other container). This means that
> > the things in web.xml *must* be respected. For example, a security
> > constraint in a web.xml file must be enforced, even on a static resource
> > that is served by Apache instead of Tomcat. Substantial modifications
> > to MOD_JK would be needed to make this work (primarily in adding a
> > two-way exchange of configuration information).
> >
> > * MOD_JK had no committers interested in maintaining it, at the time
> > that the decision was made. Subsequent to that time, several
> > volunteers have surfaced, including at least one person interested in
> > supporting MOD_JK under Tomcat 4.0. That would be fine with me,
> > as long as the result obeys all the rules.
> >
> > Craig McClanahan
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
>
> Dan Milstein // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
