Graham Leggett wrote:

> > So, my question is. Why do we need again some container to 
> accomplish that?
> 
> Because the container already gives you an established 
> configuration method, a standard set of documentation, and a 
> standard expectation from end users on how it should work.
>

That's all OK. Look at the mail archive and you will see that this is
exactly the 'look and feel' that we wish to achieve.

> 
> Compromises like what?
>

<AjpWorker and <AjpBalancer for example, or do we need to mimic that inside
the existing configuration directives?
Well the, <AjpWorker can be mapped to ProxyRemote if you change it to
<ProxyRemote. See my point?

There is also a lot of extra params that we'll need to set for each
particular worker or Remote.

If you are will to support something like that, then we can speak on.

> I see no reason why every single feature of mod_jk cannot be 
> implemented in a proxy_ajp, or with the assitance of other 
> potential modules with general application like proxy_loadbalancer.
> 

Me neither. I really see no reason for that, except that we don't have
neither proxy_ajp nor proxy_loadbalancer.
I also see no reason why the mod_proxy functionally cannot be implemented in
mod_jk2 :).

> > 
> > If someone wishes to make a proxy_ajp I don't have a problem with 
> > that, quite opposite, but I still wish to write (like 
> initially said) 
> > the module that will only and only communicate to 
> application server 
> > cluster, nothing less, nothing more.
> 
> This is the precise goal of the proxy framework.
> 

Look, if others on the tomcat-dev are willing to write the proxy_ajp and
proxy_loadbalancer, then OK. After all, I'm Borg, I will adapt :).
I personally don't like the idea, and still think that we should first make
something workable outside the Apache2 tree, at least for the reason to be
able to make a release without waiting for the rest of the guys.

Would it be possible to copy the entire mod_proxy inside j-t-c tree and then
later merge it with the httpd tree when we reach some version 1.0?

Regards,
MT.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to