Will Apache cache jsp pages also or only html and
images. I don't have any standalone html pages
(except my simple index.html) otherwise every file
requested is of type *.jsp.
Thanks for all the replies so far.
-- Chad
--- Curtis Dougherty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apache caches the pages... The initial load into
> cache will take a fraction
> of a second longer but from that point on it will
> zip right through.
>
> :-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tsinwah Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 5:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone vs Tomcat w/ Apache
>
>
> What? using Apache with Tomcat will increase the
> performance for static
> pages? Well, my admin told me the opposite, she said
> the browser "hesitated"
> for a fraction of a second and then the static pages
> got load up when using
> Apache + Tomcat. So she wanted to use Tomcat
> standalone instead. So how come
> there is an increase in performance? Please help me
> to convice my admin to
> use both Apache and Tomcat. Thanks much in advance.
>
> T.
>
> Srinivas Reddy wrote:
>
> > Also there is an increase in performance for
> static files like .html and
> > static images.
> >
> > -srini
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tim O'Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 2:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: Tomcat standalone vs Tomcat w/ Apache
> >
> > > At 02:04 PM 7/30/2001, you wrote:
> > > >Are there any advantages running Tomcat with
> Apache
> > > >versus running Tomcat standalone and listening
> on port
> > > >80. I am running only *.jsp files on my
> webserver.
> > >
> > > Added security if you use Apache.
> > >
> > >
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
