Hi,
On Son 01.08.2004 11:46, Mladen Turk wrote:
You can take a look at current development at j-t-c/ajp and http_wrap
that mimics the libhttpd functionality and enables console apps to
behave like a http server.
Thanx i will look there ;-)
This is the fundamental difference from JK/JK2 where we had
Alexander Lazic wrote:
> >
> >Since we plan to developp an AJP library, it will ease the task for
> >ajp_proxy and we could validate many points like this and have a
> >release rate independant from the HTTPD 2.0/2.1 rr.
>
> Well does you plan to bind this library to apr?
Yes, but also to th
Hi,
On Mon 26.07.2004 12:01, Henri Gomez wrote:
Since we plan to developp an AJP library, it will ease the task for
ajp_proxy and we could validate many points like this and have a
release rate independant from the HTTPD 2.0/2.1 rr.
Well does you plan to bind this library to apr?
I ask because i wa
I suspect isapi_redirect will continue working for some time (though
it's URI pattern mapping really did not work for quite some time until
1.2.6).
mod_auth_sspi seems to solve the NTLM issue fairly nicely.
The political reasons are, however, without any technical basis and thus
cannot realisti
Costin Manolache wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
What about adding/updating of webapps ? Is this a feature that will
never be added ( because if it will be and it is not part of the
design - then we're back to spaghetti )
Well if you recall my AJP/1.4 proposal it was on my wish-list :
Adding/Removing/
Henri Gomez wrote:
What about adding/updating of webapps ? Is this a feature that will
never be added ( because if it will be and it is not part of the
design - then we're back to spaghetti )
Well if you recall my AJP/1.4 proposal it was on my wish-list :
Adding/Removing/Updating a webapp on a t
Ari Suutari wrote:
Hi,
I think we do have agreement on droping IIS/iPlanet.
Does this mean that in the future there won't be a way to
integrate tomcat to IIS ? We have some customers that
require use of IIS as frontend (for either political reasons or
they want to use integrated w
Costin Manolache wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Of course, no one is forced to participate in development, but
everyone is
welcome. The only question is do we have enough juice to make it
official.
AFICT, Remy, Henri and myself are in favor.
But frankly I se
Graham Leggett wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
If I make a design flaw, and the entire project gets unusable, it will
make
it just something like mod_java, mod_warp, mod_jk and mod_jk2 are...
Dead.
Nobody will get hanged for that.
Some code is always better than no code - at best, the code will be goo
Costin Manolache wrote:
>
> I agree with libajp.so.
>
> I don't agree we need to develop new connector for apache2.0.
> If we can't get it backported to 2.0 - then we can just
> provide a separate build ( mod_proxy21 ).
>
Sure, that's the one of solutions.
> > that, and BTW I'm working on
Hi,
> I think we do have agreement on droping IIS/iPlanet.
Does this mean that in the future there won't be a way to
integrate tomcat to IIS ? We have some customers that
require use of IIS as frontend (for either political reasons or
they want to use integrated windows authentica
Mladen Turk wrote:
Well, the way I see (think that Henri has the similar ideas) is to have the
ajp protocol lib, usable to communicate to TC from any container, not only
http server, and mod_ajp as a layer on top of it _only_ for Apache 2.0
branch _and_only_ if the proxy_ajp doesn't get back propa
Costin Manolache wrote:
> > AFICR you said that you will have something to share, and
> I'd love to see
> > some other, perhaps better ideas.
>
> No, I'm trying stuff on java side.
>
OK.
> And just like with code - I don't think we are missing
> propositions or
> ideas. What is missing is
Remy Maucherat wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
We have noted that mod_proxy + mod_proxy_http are slow compared with
mod_jk.
I think that the next step should be to try to find "why" instead
writting a new modules. May be a quick hacked mod_proxy_ajp to replace
mod_proxy_http is the first step.
Mladen Turk wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
If I make a design flaw, and the entire project gets
unusable, it will
make it just something like mod_java, mod_warp, mod_jk and
mod_jk2 are... Dead.
Nobody will get hanged for that.
I don't think the goal is to accumulate more
Costin Manolache wrote:
>
> Mladen Turk wrote:
> >
> > If I make a design flaw, and the entire project gets
> unusable, it will
> > make it just something like mod_java, mod_warp, mod_jk and
> mod_jk2 are... Dead.
> > Nobody will get hanged for that.
>
>
> I don't think the goal is to acc
jean-frederic clere wrote:
We have noted that mod_proxy + mod_proxy_http are slow compared with
mod_jk.
I think that the next step should be to try to find "why" instead
writting a new modules. May be a quick hacked mod_proxy_ajp to replace
mod_proxy_http is the first step.
Note that I am a bit
Henri Gomez wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Of course, no one is forced to participate in development, but
everyone is
welcome. The only question is do we have enough juice to make it
official.
AFICT, Remy, Henri and myself are in favor.
But frankly I see no reason for someone
Henri Gomez wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Of course, no one is forced to participate in development, but
everyone is
welcome. The only question is do we have enough juice to make it
official.
AFICT, Remy, Henri and myself are in favor.
But frankly I see no reason for someone
Mladen Turk wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Of course, no one is forced to participate in development, but
everyone is welcome.
The only question is do we have enough juice to make it official.
AFICT, Remy, Henri and myself are in favor.
But frankly I see no reason for someon
Graham Leggett wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
>
> > If I make a design flaw, and the entire project gets
> unusable, it will
> > make it just something like mod_java, mod_warp, mod_jk and
> mod_jk2 are... Dead.
> > Nobody will get hanged for that.
>
> Some code is always better than no code -
Mladen Turk wrote:
If I make a design flaw, and the entire project gets unusable, it will make
it just something like mod_java, mod_warp, mod_jk and mod_jk2 are... Dead.
Nobody will get hanged for that.
Some code is always better than no code - at best, the code will be good
enough to fit the need
Henri Gomez wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Of course, no one is forced to participate in development, but
everyone is
welcome. The only question is do we have enough juice to make it
official.
AFICT, Remy, Henri and myself are in favor.
But frankly I see no reason for someone
Costin Manolache wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Of course, no one is forced to participate in development, but
everyone is
welcome. The only question is do we have enough juice to make it
official.
AFICT, Remy, Henri and myself are in favor.
But frankly I see no reason for someone to object, cause it
Costin Manolache wrote:
>
> Mladen Turk wrote:
>
>
> > Of course, no one is forced to participate in development, but
> > everyone is welcome.
> > The only question is do we have enough juice to make it official.
> > AFICT, Remy, Henri and myself are in favor.
> > But frankly I see no reason
Mladen Turk wrote:
Of course, no one is forced to participate in development, but everyone is
welcome.
The only question is do we have enough juice to make it official.
AFICT, Remy, Henri and myself are in favor.
But frankly I see no reason for someone to object, cause it's open source
after all,
Graham Leggett wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
Peace on ASF :)
Indeed :)
well mod_ajp will probably goes a bit farther than mod_proxy +
proxy_ajp since mod_proxy will allways relay static configuration, ie
map some knowns URL to knowns Tomcat.
Why would mod_proxy always rely on a static configuration
Henri Gomez wrote:
Peace on ASF :)
Indeed :)
well mod_ajp will probably goes a bit farther than mod_proxy + proxy_ajp
since mod_proxy will allways relay static configuration, ie map some
knowns URL to knowns Tomcat.
Why would mod_proxy always rely on a static configuration?
Don't forget that a lo
Graham Leggett wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
I think very few people are actually using mod_proxy instead of
mod_jk. You've got to back your assertion with some kind of numbers,
otherwise it's FUD.
As do you. The assertion was based on comments on this mailing list, but
we've already established
Remy Maucherat wrote:
I think very few people are actually using mod_proxy instead of mod_jk.
You've got to back your assertion with some kind of numbers, otherwise
it's FUD.
As do you. The assertion was based on comments on this mailing list, but
we've already established that there is a need f
Graham Leggett wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
The framework itself could be designed in a way which would end up
hurting performance. It did happen in Tomcat in the past, and I don't
know about mod_proxy since I haven't looked at it, but it could happen.
All the framework does is determine that a
Remy Maucherat wrote:
The framework itself could be designed in a way which would end up
hurting performance. It did happen in Tomcat in the past, and I don't
know about mod_proxy since I haven't looked at it, but it could happen.
All the framework does is determine that a proxy handler is respon
Henri Gomez wrote:
> Bill Barker wrote:
>
> > I'm with Graham on this. Personally, I have very little
> interest in a
> > mod_ajp module, but I am interested in proxy_ajp, proxy_lb,
> etc. Of
> > course, since j-t-c has long doubled as j-t-sandbox, this
> means that
> > I'm +0 for commi
Bill Barker wrote:
I'm with Graham on this. Personally, I have very little interest in a
mod_ajp module, but I am interested in proxy_ajp, proxy_lb, etc. Of course,
since j-t-c has long doubled as j-t-sandbox, this means that I'm +0 for
committing your stuff there.
Well Mladen has been quick to r
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Graham Leggett wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Until I'm shown a mod_proxy (with HTTP) with performance close to
mod_jk, my opinion is that we can't use it.
As I've pointed out already, mod_proxy is a framework. The performance
numbers quoted tested mod_proxy_http, not mod_pro
Graham Leggett wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Until I'm shown a mod_proxy (with HTTP) with performance close to
mod_jk, my opinion is that we can't use it.
As I've pointed out already, mod_proxy is a framework. The performance
numbers quoted tested mod_proxy_http, not mod_proxy, which doesn't do
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Until I'm shown a mod_proxy (with HTTP) with performance close to
mod_jk, my opinion is that we can't use it.
As I've pointed out already, mod_proxy is a framework. The performance
numbers quoted tested mod_proxy_http, not mod_proxy, which doesn't do
anything on it's own.
Bill Barker wrote:
I'm with Graham on this. Personally, I have very little interest in a
mod_ajp module, but I am interested in proxy_ajp, proxy_lb, etc. Of course,
since j-t-c has long doubled as j-t-sandbox, this means that I'm +0 for
committing your stuff there.
I think Mladen's initiative
m: "Graham Leggett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Mod_ajp initial
> Mladen Turk wrote:
>
> > Yes, that's the general idea.
> > We focus on v2.0 and TCP/IP prot
Graham Leggett wrote:
> > Well, the development will not be over in 2 days, and the
> plan is to
> > use mod_ajp as a base for testing new protocol extensions,
> and to be
> > always a little bit faster and better then mod_proxy with
> proxy_ajp :).
>
> Don't forget mod_proxy is just a fra
Mladen Turk wrote:
Yes, that's the general idea.
We focus on v2.0 and TCP/IP protocol (for now).
Cool.
Well, the development will not be over in 2 days, and the plan is to use
mod_ajp as a base for testing new protocol extensions, and to be always a
little bit faster and better then mod_proxy with
Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> Mladen Turk wrote:
>
> > Some rationale:
> >
> > I spoke with Henri and we decided that although mod_proxy with
> > proxy_ajp is a good idea (in the long term... very long
> term), we need
> > something that will fill in the gaps.
>
> As there is an existing code
Mladen Turk wrote:
Some rationale:
I spoke with Henri and we decided that although mod_proxy with proxy_ajp is a
good idea (in the long term... very long term), we need something that will
fill in the gaps.
As there is an existing codebase, getting a module together that
supports Apache v2.0 nativ
Hi all,
To whom it may satisfy...
Here is some code that can be used for starting mod_ajp for Apache2.0/2.1.
You are welcome to join :)
It can be downloaded from:
http://www.apache.org/~mturk/modajp.tar.gz
Some rationale:
I spoke with Henri and we decided that although mod_proxy with proxy_
44 matches
Mail list logo
