Greetings again.
Congratulations, Jackpot, Bingo, Bravo, Well Done, etc, etc...
Tomcat is back working again.
Mladen Turk wrote:
NormW wrote:
>
OK. Was not that hard :) .
See the latest commit for ajp_common.c.
You can use worker.worker1.socket_timeout=0 if
not like compling.
Will update to the la
NormW wrote:
> Good evening again.
> No idea why the size difference but have attached tonights trace log
as indicated.
> The configuration is based on Peter Rosbach's config from a few days
ago. The 'worker2' __will__ fail because it is non-existant, but logic
says this is similar to a Tomcat t
Good evening again.
No idea why the size difference but have attached tonights trace log as
indicated.
The configuration is based on Peter Rosbach's config from a few days
ago. The 'worker2' __will__ fail because it is non-existant, but logic
says this is similar to a Tomcat that went offline in
NormW wrote:
Good evening...
From this I assume:
1) The current config is okay,
Only not sure why you need /*.jsp and /servlet/*.
It's a bad practice. You should map only deployed
applications, but OK.
2) You didn't get the trace I sent last night.
Think that dev list has a limit on attachments.
J
Good evening...
From this I assume:
1) The current config is okay,
2) You didn't get the trace I sent last night.
Will do another; apologies for the hassles.
Norm
Mladen Turk wrote:
NormW wrote:
Greetings All...
Two days ago I had a configuration that was working to TC5, but after
adding in the pa
NormW wrote:
Greetings All...
Two days ago I had a configuration that was working to TC5, but after
adding in the patches since then, all I get is 'Internal Server Error'
which natuarally enough isn't a great deal of help.
Hi, as said before:
Clear the mod_jk.log.
Set:
JkLogLevel trace
start apa
>> worker.ajp13.channel=socket,8009
>> worker.ajp13.channel=unix,path
>
>The problem is that the communication channel and the protocol are
>distinct entities.
that's why the channel have no one parm, but a principal,
socket, and extras qualifying it.
it could be also :
worker.ajp13.channel.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> could we use for example
>
> worker.ajp13.channel=socket,8009
> worker.ajp13.channel=unix,path
The problem is that the communication channel and the protocol are
distinct entities.
You can add a new channel with it's own properties ( like JNI,
or w
>> I can see that this is going to make life difficult for
>ApacheConfig. Yes,
>> hopefully we can deprecate it soon. But in the mean time,
>I'd personally
>> prefer that the port is a property of the worker.ajp13. So
>your example
>> would be:
>> worker.ajp13.channel=socket
>> worker.ajp13
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Bill Barker wrote:
> I can see that this is going to make life difficult for ApacheConfig. Yes,
> hopefully we can deprecate it soon. But in the mean time, I'd personally
> prefer that the port is a property of the worker.ajp13. So your example
> would be:
> worker.ajp13.c
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:07 PM
Subject: jk2: config
> I just commited a big chunk of config changes to support
> dynamic configuration of jk2.
>
> I'm pretty happy with the new model - many new things
> will b
11 matches
Mail list logo
