Costin Manolache wrote:
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.
You must keep in mind that tomcat5 is no longer server.xml centric !
It can use separate config files in different directories, if it is embedded it can use the embedor's config, etc.
And httpd.conf is static - you can't modify it. We support using httpd.conf for performance-versus-flexibility or for native auth - if you want to use the apache mapper and auth instead of jk mapper and tomcat auth.
Well httpd.conf is static but nothing prevent from doing :
<Location /examples> AjpWorker myworker </Location>
=> All /examples goes to myworker, which could be a simple tomcat or a cluster. but the idea behind is to make updates to this 'myworker' from the behind, JMX or AJP13++/AJP14 link.
So IMO any jk config MUST be JMX-like.
May be.
Of course we should have somewhere in the new module the configuration tree in whatever native format we could imagine, apr_map maybe or apr_xml_tree if existing.
File format is not important - dynamic changes and updates are the important issue.
- the configuration should be in Apache's config file, rather than some complex properties file
+1
See above.
Apache config file is clearly better than any arbitrary static jk-specific config file. And it does provide close integration - including auth* using any of apache modules, and anything you can dream of in terms of apache modules.
However - it is very static, and I doubt this will change soon. Even with apache2, if you change the config ( add a webapp ) you need to restart apache ( which may be interesting if multithreaded and some module is using sessions).
Not necessary. Nothing prevent us from doing something like this :
<Location /*.jsp> AjpWorker myworker </Location>
<Location /servlet/*> AjpWorker myworker </Location>
And if the mod_xxx is able to discover the webapp attached to myworker, you got them redirected to the correct worker.
The real important feature in jk2 is the JMX emulation - I know almost nobody uses it :-).
Well the code is too complex in jk2, and that's also why we need some cleanups.
Without having a common codebase and API that can be used outside Apache2?
I like apache2, but keeping the options open is pretty important. Tomcat can be integrated in more than Web servers :-)
Of course but many users and admins are confused in using jk2 with Apache 2 for example. Too many way to do the same conf make jk2 a difficult thing and that's why many stay on jk 1.2.x
If you have a good infrastructure ( library ) for dynamic config and request forwarding - why not keep it reusable for other applications, even for things besides tomcat.
Well if other application want to access an embedded tomcat, they could use JNI or direct Java calls ?
Having a closeley integrated variant ( using this library ) is a great idea, and it would be even better if this could be bundled with apache.
Of course that's the idea, having a resonable module which could came
with Apache 2.x distributions, following the same code standards (ie using apr_/ap_) and also the same documentation format (the HTTPD 2.0
documentation is really clear).
We should discuss what will be in the API, some will be only APR dependant, but of course many will be dependant of Apache 2.x, for examples Apache requests.
But we could see simple call, like :
int xxx_forward_simple_request( xxx_worker_t *, apr_pool_t * req_uri, apr_pool_t * reply_data);
int xxx_forward_simple_post_request( xxx_worker_t *, apr_pool_t * req_uri, apr_pool_t * post_data, apr_pool_t * reply_data);
int xxx_forward_full_request( xxx_worker_t *, apr_pool_t * req_uri, apr_table_t * headers, apr_pool_t * post_data, apr_pool_t * reply_data);
In that case why not write only proxy_coyote for mod_proxy?
Since it will be nice to be able to be warned in mod_xxx from real-time topology updates, ie application down on one tomcat, new application on another tomcat, cluster updates...
This may be a good feature for mod_proxy as well BTW :-)
mod_proxy didn't support clustering :(
- 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.
It was proposed some times ago together with some light crypto to secure
apache - tomcat link when you're not in a secure network. All of these could be made optional in protocol negociation side of AJP/14...
It's all nice, but I don't see it as the biggest priority and it may be better implemented after everything else settles down ( otherwise the extra code would make changes harder ).
Of course, negociation is one thing, implementation is another.
It seems close apache2 integration is a pretty big change
Yes, a total rewrite of the existing code, no more jk, no more jk2, but cut/paste, redesign and rewrite.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
