We should first determine if Apache2 will have to monitor a service/system links to the various tomcats (in cluster configuration) to learn about real-time topology.
In fact, that is why I've pursued the .xml config over the current one.
The main idea is to _internally_ have config tree (right now we don't have
that).
So that internal configuration tree will be populated either using
directives in the native httpd.conf or reading server.xml stream from TC or
from file.
You must keep in mind that tomcat5 is no longer server.xml centric !
It can use separate config files in different directories, if it is embedded it can use the embedor's config, etc.
And httpd.conf is static - you can't modify it. We support using httpd.conf for performance-versus-flexibility or for native auth - if you want to use the apache mapper and auth instead of jk mapper and tomcat auth.
So IMO any jk config MUST be JMX-like.
Of course we should have somewhere in the new module the configuration tree in whatever native format we could imagine, apr_map maybe or apr_xml_tree if existing.
File format is not important - dynamic changes and updates are the important issue.
- the configuration should be in Apache's config file, rather than some complex properties file
+1
See above.
Apache config file is clearly better than any arbitrary static jk-specific config file. And it does provide close integration - including auth* using any of apache modules, and anything you can dream of in terms of apache modules.
However - it is very static, and I doubt this will change soon. Even with apache2, if you change the config ( add a webapp ) you need to restart apache ( which may be interesting if multithreaded and some module is using sessions).
The real important feature in jk2 is the JMX emulation - I know almost nobody uses it :-).
The general idea is to connect to TC and get the URI/VHOST topology, but we
still need the 'intervene' directives for connector specific ones.
How to make them simpler to use the JK and JK2?
Perhaps using something like:
<CoyoteWorker workerA> ...directives
</CoyoteWorker>
I agreed for this on worker configuration in httpd.conf.
And then:
<Files *.jsp> CoyoteUsesWorker workerA </Files>
ok.
We should also be able to handle :
<Location /myspecialurl> CoyoteUsesWorker workerA </Files>
Something very familiar to Apache admins.
+1 ( it's actually already working AFAIK - or it used to be ).
- it should work well with other modules (I guess if somehow it is accepted into the Apache codebase, it will be required)
That's why we should focus on Apache 2 only module.
Not sure I'm in favor of that (unless you meant dropping 1.3 module by that).
Of course, I want a module designed for Apache 2.x (2.0/2.1). Apache 1.3 could live with jk 1.2.x. IIS/NES/DOMINO could use jk 1.2 or jk2. No more code complexity to handle all the web-servers around, we should focus on Apache 2.x.
For example majors Linux distributions are now using Apache 2 instead of Apache 1.3. So Apache 2.x will be more and more used.
Without having a common codebase and API that can be used outside Apache2?
I like apache2, but keeping the options open is pretty important. Tomcat can be integrated in more than Web servers :-)
If you have a good infrastructure ( library ) for dynamic config and request forwarding - why not keep it reusable for other applications, even for things besides tomcat.
Having a closeley integrated variant ( using this library ) is a great idea, and it would be even better if this could be bundled with apache.
We should discuss what will be in the API, some will be only APR dependant, but of course many will be dependant of Apache 2.x, for examples Apache requests.
But we could see simple call, like :
int xxx_forward_simple_request( xxx_worker_t *, apr_pool_t * req_uri, apr_pool_t * reply_data);
int xxx_forward_simple_post_request( xxx_worker_t *, apr_pool_t * req_uri, apr_pool_t * post_data, apr_pool_t * reply_data);
int xxx_forward_full_request( xxx_worker_t *, apr_pool_t * req_uri, apr_table_t * headers, apr_pool_t * post_data, apr_pool_t * reply_data);
In that case why not write only proxy_coyote for mod_proxy?
Since it will be nice to be able to be warned in mod_xxx from real-time topology updates, ie application down on one tomcat, new application on another tomcat, cluster updates...
This may be a good feature for mod_proxy as well BTW :-)
- I think the protocol should be an extension of AJP/1.3
I proposed eons ago, AJP/1.3 extension, called AJP/1.4 and it could be a good candidate. In my idea we should start to write an APR based
AJP/1.4 library, which could be first used outside Apache 2 server for test and benchs purposes.
+1, but in contradiction with previous :).
I would also like to see the gzip like extension to AJP/xx for lowering the
data transfer.
It was proposed some times ago together with some light crypto to secure
apache - tomcat link when you're not in a secure network. All of these could be made optional in protocol negociation side of AJP/14...
It's all nice, but I don't see it as the biggest priority and it may be better implemented after everything else settles down ( otherwise the extra code would make changes harder ).
It seems close apache2 integration is a pretty big change
Costin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
