On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Bojan Smojver wrote: > > it can already map any URI. All it has to do is: > > - for each index: > > Just reading the algorithm and thinking about the implementation of it. Some of
Well, don't take it as an algorithm - there are many other things to consider. > <DirectoryIndex index.jsp index.vm> > > The order of events would be: > > 1. mod_dir does a sub request for index.jsp > 2. jk_map_to_storage() receives the request > 3. jk_map_to_storage() engages map_uri_to_worker() <-- this would be new code > 4. map_uri_to_worker() finds nothing because it has no mapping to anything that > matches *.jsp That's actually a problem - map_uri_to_worker would find a match ( using *.jsp extension mapping ). That's very serious - need to check the servlet specs, maybe 2.4 has more details. I'm not sure how tomcat deals with that - we would find the extension mapping and find the JspServlet which is mapped to it. But there is no way to tell if this is a real match or not - without invoking JspServlet. ( well, for JSPs we know that a file may be there, but what if the extension would be for something else ? ) Craig, Remy - any ideas ? > Now, the next step is rather tricky and is the key to the whole thing. Does > jk_map_to_storage(): > > a) assume that there is index.jsp in one of the mappings that match the URI > minus the filename; jk_map_to_storage() could be very wrong about this - maybe > there is a default file there, but not index.jsp - this would then result in a > failed request If jk_map_to_storage finds an exact or prefix mapping - then the problem is solved, the request goes to tomcat. If it finds an extension mapping - I have no idea. If it doesn't find any mapping - then it's not a request for tomcat and you can look for static files ( or let mod_dir do it ). > Keep in mind that these are sub-requests that don't actually result in the file > being served. It's just mod_dir's way of checking what would happen if there > was a file like that 'in the file system'. So, one cannot 'go back' and do all > this again, unless mod_dir is changed to do this kind of thing twice (which is > definitely a bad idea). No, you don't need to go back. For each attempted index you make a subrequest and you need to determine if tomcat could handle it. Assuming jk has knowledge about all the mappings in web.xml - you can do that ( again, I don't know how to deal with extension mappings ). > If my old kludge is applied (with the correct test this time) to jk_handler(), > things might be better. The kludge involved jk_handler() responding not just to > JK_HANDLER requests but also to DIR_MAGIC_TYPE requests. Now, jk_handler() would > find the mapping (since the request is for a directory, not a file) and the > request would be served by Tomcat. I think this would work and is the best short-term solution. If it is a DIR, let tomcat serve it for now. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
