Henri Gomez wrote: > Remy Maucherat wrote: > >> Henri Gomez wrote: >> >>> Why did you include JK2 docs into Tomcat 4.1.11 ? >> >> >> >> Because people who download Tomcat usually want to configure JK also, >> without going online again after downloading the binaries. >> >>> I think it's better to have them on jakarta site (will have to >>> create a jakarta-tomcat-connector/jk and jk2 from main pages). >> >> >> >> No, it's a bad idea. Experience has shown that people see JK + Tomcat >> as being one product, although we may develop it separately. They also >> have no idea where to look for documentation, and I don't want to link >> back to the web. >> >> So I'd like to include the whole doc bundle with the Tomcat download >> (and have some connector binaries also). >> >>> I agree you should include the java side of JK2 but not the >>> native one. >>> >>> Don't forget that many users will use jk instead of jk2 since >>> it's their current setup and may be desoriented by seing ref >>> to jk2 in TC4... >> >> >> >> JK the Java code is dead (deprecated, and unsupported). JK 2 the Java >> code is the current code. >> mod_jk OTOH is the current code, and mod_jk2 is experimental. > > > When I said JK, I was thinking jk 1.2.0 (native). > > So what to do with jk 1.2.0 doc ? > > JF and I worked on it for at least 2 weeks, since doc allways was > a leak in connector are. > > Do you plan to included also jk 1.2.0 doc or make reference to > it ?
I tried including everything. The idea would be to have users be able to download the bundle (eventually), put it on a CD, and don't have to browse the web for more info. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
