Bill Barker wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Mod_Jk2 - Default Worker
Henri Gomez wrote:
Well, if we didn't get the POST somewhere o
Costin Manolache wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
Well, if we didn't get the POST somewhere on the WebServer, and if the
tomcat failed to respond, we couldn't resent the whole POST to the
second one.
If we get the first bytes ( but not the entire POST ), we can still save
them, and if the first tomc
- Original Message -
From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Mod_Jk2 - Default Worker
> Henri Gomez wrote:
>
> > Well, if we didn't get the POST somewhere on the
Good morning Costin.
> NormW wrote:
> > Good morning Costin.
> > Apologies for the silence. I had hoped there might have been a little
more
> > input from others on this topic.
>
> Same here :-)
>
> >
> >>However the most common case is to have at least one tomcat, and there
> >>is no real benefit
Henri Gomez wrote:
Well, if we didn't get the POST somewhere on the WebServer, and if the
tomcat failed to respond, we couldn't resent the whole POST to the
second one.
If we get the first bytes ( but not the entire POST ), we can still save
them, and if the first tomcat fails - resend it.
Wh
Costin Manolache wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
NormW wrote:
Good morning Costin.
Apologies for the silence. I had hoped there might have been a
little more
input from others on this topic.
Same here :-)
We're working
Henri Gomez wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
NormW wrote:
Good morning Costin.
Apologies for the silence. I had hoped there might have been a
little more
input from others on this topic.
Same here :-)
We're working, Jean-Frederic, Kurt and I
Hi Costin,
>> Good morning Costin.
>> Apologies for the silence. I had hoped there might have been a little
>> more input from others on this topic.
I think it is also necessary to discuss a bit the proper configuration of mod_jk2.
The docu is all other but clear, mixed up with the docu for mod_jk,
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
NormW wrote:
Good morning Costin.
Apologies for the silence. I had hoped there might have been a
little more
input from others on this topic.
Same here :-)
We're working, Jean-Frederic, Kurt and I in arranging 2.0.4 bu
Henri Gomez wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
NormW wrote:
Good morning Costin.
Apologies for the silence. I had hoped there might have been a little
more
input from others on this topic.
Same here :-)
We're working, Jean-Frederic, Kurt and I in arranging 2.0.4 build so new
features should wai
Costin Manolache wrote:
NormW wrote:
Good morning Costin.
Apologies for the silence. I had hoped there might have been a little
more
input from others on this topic.
Same here :-)
We're working, Jean-Frederic, Kurt and I in arranging 2.0.4 build so new
features should wait for 2.0.5.
BTW, I a
NormW wrote:
Good morning Costin.
Apologies for the silence. I had hoped there might have been a little more
input from others on this topic.
Same here :-)
However the most common case is to have at least one tomcat, and there
is no real benefit in supporting an arbitrary name for the worker (
lb
Good morning Costin.
Apologies for the silence. I had hoped there might have been a little more
input from others on this topic.
> NormW wrote:
> > Good morning Costin.
> > Thanks for the time given to replying.
> > I agree with the ideas you have given, of decoupling URI's from workers
> > explic
>; Mon Feb 9 02:06:14 2004
Received: from cmanolache by adsl-63-202-82-219.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net with local
(Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon Feb 9 02:06:14 2004
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Cost
NormW wrote:
Good morning Costin.
Thanks for the time given to replying.
I agree with the ideas you have given, of decoupling URI's from workers
explicitly tied to a communications protocol, but in reality this
connectivity is supported and actually gives the minimum workable
configuration. But giv
Good morning Costin.
Thanks for the time given to replying.
I agree with the ideas you have given, of decoupling URI's from workers
explicitly tied to a communications protocol, but in reality this
connectivity is supported and actually gives the minimum workable
configuration. But given that a def
NormW wrote:
> Good morning All.
> The default 'worker', which is hard-wired into Mod_Jk2, is 'lb:lb', and
> is, for most users I believe, a wrong guess at best, since the majority of
> users are probably not using mod_jk2 in load-balancing mode. The 'guess'
> means that mod_jk2 creates uri object
17 matches
Mail list logo
