The changes would have to be simple, and non intrusive performance wise. Otherwise, I'm going to prefer AJP ;)
Speaking about performance, did anyone do a comparison of mod_proxy against mod_jk to see how good/bad it is ? This is really important information IMO, and I don't see how a decision can be made without it.
I did a couple quick tests using a few different sized static documents using ab, Tomcat 5.0.27, Apache 2.0.50 both on the same single CPU machine. Depending on the document size, mod_proxy was anywhere from 50% (very small document of a few bytes) to 10% (30k document) slower than mod_jk.
By comparison, going directly to Tomcat about twice as fast as using mod_jk, and going directly to Apache is another 30% faster than that.
Watching CPU utilization when switching between mod_jk and mod_proxy showed that Tomcat uses a lot more CPU when using mod_proxy than when using mod_jk.
So while the performance hit isn't negligible, it's not too bad. It does show that it will be worthwhile to a proxy_ajp_module, but at the same time I think that using plain http provides more than enough performance for the majority of users out there, and you can't argue with the fact that the work will benefit a lot more than just Tomcat and lessen development time.
I could see people using the proposed load-balancing functionality along with mod_proxy to balance requests to clusters of many other application servers (PHP, perl, CGI, etc) as well.
-Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
