All, > I am seeing more and more blog entries and articles suggesting using > mod_proxy_ajp over mod_jk. > > I have two questions on this subject: > > Can someone from this list please provide some practical examples and real > stories on why should one use mod_proxy over mod_jk?
I have to say that I tried mod_proxy_ajp recently, and was unable to get it to do everything I needed. It appears to work well if all you want to do it take an entire URL space and sent it to Tomcat. In our case, we have the following additional requirements: 1) We'd like Apache to serve static content. It did not appear that Apache was serving the static files for us. 2) We needed to have certain parts of the URL space point to another instance of Tomcat (running Cocoon in this case), which /was/ possible, but required a mod_rewrite hack or two. 3) Alias, Rewrite, and other directives appear to be trumped by mod_proxy because that's what a Proxy does -- route data. Personally, I hope that mod_jk does not go away because the configuration for complex setups is /soooo/ much easier using it. mod_proxy_ajp either needs a lot of work, or much better documentation for cases like this. Assuming that mod_proxy_ajp is intended to be a /proxy/ (hence the name), I think this is the wrong direction to go; we don't need a proxy to shuttle /all/ requests to and from Tomcat. We need something where we can specify /exact/ URLs as well as URL patterns to be proxied. mod_proxy only allows what look like directories (URL prefixes ending in '/') and /everything/ below, and appears to forward everything. :( -chris
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
