On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Pier P. Fumagalli wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > well, it seems mod_jk supports
> > the same 'autoconfig' mode as mod_webapp - and it did that since the
> > beginning
>
> Sometimes I just wish to quit this whole shit and go working for Starbucks
> (or Microsoft)... Thank you so much for pointing out what an idiot I am all
> the times...
???
Please don't take this personally - I put some (free) time into
this, and if I don't like your solution doesn't mean I consider you an
"idiot" ( or that I'll not use the same solution, as it's considerably
easier to implement :-)
I spent a whole night reading the mod_webapp sources and trying to
understand how this magic autoconfiguration works. There is a big interest
in simpler configuration for apache+tomcat, and your code was the first
place to look for something that can be merged into mod_jk.
I'm not sure I completely understand it ( a huge mistery for me how you
deal with the "/" root context, if you mount it then no page will be
served by apache ). Another mistery is how you deal with virtual hosts,
but that's easier.
Anyway, if I understood your code ( and congrats for the
javadocs ), it maps the whole context, without making distinction between
static pages and servlets. The same thing is supported by mod_jk, except
we're not using this ( since many people use apache to get fast static
pages - if you want tomcat to serve all pages there's little reason to add
apache ).
I was going to send a proposal to use the same mechanism by default in
mod_jk ( and tomcat3.3 ), except I can't understand how to deal with the
root context. This will be a good short term solution and would also allow
people to use either mod_jk or mod_webapp ( assuming the very unlikely
merging of the 2 codebases ). Or at least will allow us to compare the
protocols - which is kind of important to decide where to spend the
development time.
Costin
( and BTW, I share your feeling about working at Starbucks and quiting
this whole shit )
