>tomcat isn't as good as apache at serving static html files and images. >also, with apache up and running you can do other stuff like execute cgi >scripts and so on. That said, I use it as a standalone web and servlet server. The primary drawback then becomes: It does NOT keep logs like a "real" webserver. There is nothing to show traffic or which is amenable to analysis. So, for a small site which doesn't care about logs, it's great and a lot easier to install, configure, and maintain than in combination with Apache. Doug
- RE: Why use apache Cato, Christopher
- RE: Why use apache Tracy_Getz
- RE: Why use apache Randy Layman
- Re: Why use apache Ben Ricker
- RE: Why use apache Randy Layman
- RE: Why use apache Jord Sonneveld
- Why Use apache Skinner, Dallas M
- RE: Why Use apache Ronan Derby
- RE: Why Use apache David M. Rosner
- Re: Why Use apache Martin Mauri
- Re: Why Use apache Doug Fields
- Re: Why Use apache Martin Mauri
- Re: Why Use apache Nick Christopher
- Re: Why Use apache Milt Epstein
- RE: Why Use apache Mike Braden
- Re: Why Use apache Peter Davison
- Re: Why USe Apache JFC
- RE: Why Use apache Sadasivakurup, Jiji L.
- RE: Why Use apache Duncan Irvine
- RE: Why Use apache Tony Armstrong
- RE: Why Use apache Peter Mutsaers