> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Bill Barker wrote: > > > > > > > Deprecating it was never voted, and the mention should be removed from the > > > documentation. IMO, the issue should then be voted upon. > > > > Pre-voting: -1 to deprecate WARP. Now that Pier is back, and interested in > > maintaining it, WARP deserves an equal chance to compete with AJP. The only > > positive lesson to come out of the Valve vs. Interceptor holy war was that > > competition is good. > > I agree.
My problem with mod_webapp as a release manager is that it has many open P1s and P2s nobody seem to care about, as well as many associated frustrated users (because one year later, there's still almost zero documentation). Pier may be back, but he's not fixing bugs either. > There's nothing wrong with multiple connectors - and 3.3 still supports > mod_jserv ( and I know people who use it ). > > I think we do agree that coyote will be the connector for > http and jk, and we'll include any other component that is > actively developed and maintained. As long as Pier and JFC > are working on webapp, it'll be alive. > > However I do think we should somehow document better what's > happening - many people have the strange impression that > webapp is going to replace jk. I'd like to find a way to indicate that the two preferred connectors are: - Coyote HTTP/1.1 - Coyote JK 2 (AJP with mod_jk, JNI) Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
