> I think we should tag the code with jk_1_4 ( considering the > jk that was > included with 3.1 == jk1.1, etc ). It seems jk_1_4 will work > with 3.3, 4.0.x and 4.1 ( and the C code can be used for 3.2.x for bug > fixes ). >
jk_1_4 is fine with me -- as long as it is tagged with something :) > Regarding jk2, I'm still working, the current strugle is with the unix > domain sockets ( since JFC commited the jk implementation, > and I promised > I'll do the java side ). I did some more changes in mod_jk(2) > config, now > seting "JkWebapp" in a Location context works for virtual > hosts and almost > everything else. I do plan few more config changes - automatically > restrict WEB-INF, etc, and I want to get at least basic info > out of the > status worker. On the java side we have a first version, but > I still have > to integrate it with either the interceptor/connector, or ( assuming > everything works as it seems ) in JkServlet ( using what I > proposed last > year, i.e. web.xml/'standard' servlets + 'trusted apps' + a > bit of magic). > Sorry it takes so long, but I have a lot of other work to do... > i was thinking that for tomcat 4.0.2, the old stuff, jk/native, jk/java/org/apache/ajp, would be considered the 'stable' (althought still beta quality) code, and the new jk2, o.a.jk would be considered still 'experimental'. just a thought, though - i don't know that much about the new code :) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
