Am Montag, 29. Oktober 2007 23:33:16 schrieb Christopher Schultz: > Dale, > > BuildSmart wrote: > >> As for only working on localhost, you need to check the rest of your > >> Apache httpd and Tomcat configurations: you probably don't have the > >> right virtual host config on either httpd or Tomcat or both. My guess is > >> "both". > > > > I only have one webapp in Tomcat as localhost and it's on port 8080 > > (with connector on 8009) what more do I need?? > > So, you have Tomcat configured to support the "localhost" virtual host > and you expect it to work with other virtual hosts? Apache httpd doesn't > do this, either. Why would you expect that an incorrect configuration > would work properly? > > > Don't tell me now that I have to add an entry in Tomcat for every > > virtualhost that wishes to access the webapp, that makes no logical > > sense to have multiple tomcat virtualhosts pointing to the same > > webapp/docroot. > > Aah, yes... but you're asking all virtual hosts in httpd to point to the > same Tomcat instance. Why does the symmetric relation not hold for such > an illogical statement? > > Tomcat, like Apache httpd, can be configured to use a default virtual > host for all requests that do not match any of the explicitly-defined > virtual hosts. Since you are so familiar with the documentation, I won't > waste space in this post with the configuration. > > > I'm using the mod_jk module and not a bastardized version so if it's not > > working per your configuration directives then it's the guys who coded > > mod_jk who are fault and you should bitch to them about it. > > I've never had a problem with mod_jk. No complaints required from my > end. It's possible that mod_jk was written to support only virtual > hosts, and not JkMount options at the top-level. I'd be surprised at > this, but there's an easy workaround: use a global virtual host. In any > event, if you need this global capability (and it sounds like you do), > try asking for this capability instead of telling the mod_jk folks that > they are bunch of idiots. You catch more flies...
Actually I had BIG problems with JkMount at a time ... well I think there was a major flaw in communication between the module and the tomcat vm ... or somewhere else. Anyway these problems are thought to be gone in recent versions (I think). > > In your case, you have discrete virtual hosts. You may have to add > "JkMount /*.jsp workerX" for each virtual host. It's not insane: it's > what's required. You have to map DocumentRoot for each VirtualHost > element. What's wrong with adding this mapping as well. The virtual host problem can be solved quite easily be apache configuration if you define you JkMount statements in a simple include file lets call it jkmount.conf and use them in your virtual host statements: <VirtualHost bla:80> # [...] include jkmount.conf # [...] </VirtualHost> > > >>>> Concerning vhosts, I didn't understand, what you try to achieve. > >>>> Please try the above JkMount first. As soon as that works for you, we > >>>> can discuss further requirements. > >>> > >>> I did, it doesn't work and it kills python and php functionality. > >> > >> No, you said that "JkMount /* workerX" kills Python and Php. Rainer is > >> asking you to use "JkMount /*.jsp workerX". > > > > workerX is not defined anywhere but I'll give it a try to satisfy you. > > OMGWTFBBQ. Nearly all of the mod_jk documentation surrounds creating > workers that connect mod_jk to Tomcat. You should have gotten /that/ > far. You must have a worker, or nothing works. "workerX" is a > placeholder for the actual worker you want to use. Put your own worker's > name in there, don't just type "workerX" and complain when it doesn't work. > ouch, yes of course there should be workers. > > guess that doesn't work either, any more suggestion??? > > Yes: use the name of the worker that you actually configured (ajp13, as > per the posted configuration). > > > it wouldn't have been so bad but more than a > > week with incomplete directions hasn't help the frustration level, > > something is definitely broken if it wont work as people tell me to > > configure it and as you stated that is how everyone configures it and it > > works for them so either I'm not getting all of the information or it > > doesn't work. No, it just a bit insane. Nore more then anything else that is done with Java. > > Let's take a quick look at your configuration. workers.properties: > > worker.list=ajp13 > worker.ajp13.host=localhost > worker.ajp13.port=8019 > worker.ajp13.type=ajp13 > > Note that you don't need the 'lbfactor' unless you are using a > load-balanced worker. > > Now, to your httpd config: > > <IfModule mod_jk.c> > JKWorkersFile /etc/httpd/workers.ajp13.properties > JKLogFile /var/log/httpd/mod_jk.log > JKLogLevel debug > JkLogStampFormat "[%a %b %d %H:%M:%S %Y] " > JkMount /*.jsp ajp13 > JkOptions +ForwardKeySize +ForwardURICompat > </IfModule> > > Your config is clearly being loaded, as you are getting messages in your > log file regarding mod_jk. > > Where is this configuration located? Is it being put into a VirtualHost, > or is it at the top-level? > > Can you post a mod_jk log of what /does/ happen when you use this > configuration and try to access a JSP page? My guess is that you'll see > there are "no" mappings in the URI worker map for that virtual host. > > What happens if, for the sake of testing, you move the JkMount directive > into a specific virtual host and try that? Does it work, then? > > -chris > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
