> -----Original Message----- > From: Henri Gomez > > We should first determine if Apache2 will have to monitor a > service/system links to the various tomcats (in cluster > configuration) to learn about real-time topology. >
In fact, that is why I've pursued the .xml config over the current one. The main idea is to _internally_ have config tree (right now we don't have that). So that internal configuration tree will be populated either using directives in the native httpd.conf or reading server.xml stream from TC or from file. > > > - the configuration should be in Apache's config file, rather than > > some complex properties file > > +1 > The general idea is to connect to TC and get the URI/VHOST topology, but we still need the 'intervene' directives for connector specific ones. How to make them simpler to use the JK and JK2? Perhaps using something like: <CoyoteWorker workerA> ...directives </CoyoteWorker> And then: <Files *.jsp> CoyoteUsesWorker workerA </Files> > > - it should work well with other modules (I guess if somehow it is > > accepted into the Apache codebase, it will be required) > > That's why we should focus on Apache 2 only module. > Not sure I'm in favor of that (unless you meant dropping 1.3 module by that). Without having a common codebase and API that can be used outside Apache2? In that case why not write only proxy_coyote for mod_proxy? > > - I think the protocol should be an extension of AJP/1.3 > > I proposed eons ago, AJP/1.3 extension, called AJP/1.4 and it > could be a good candidate. In my idea we should start to > write an APR based > AJP/1.4 library, which could be first used outside Apache 2 > server for test and benchs purposes. > +1, but in contradiction with previous :). I would also like to see the gzip like extension to AJP/xx for lowering the data transfer. MT.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
