Graham Leggett wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Until I'm shown a mod_proxy (with HTTP) with performance close to mod_jk, my opinion is that we can't use it.
As I've pointed out already, mod_proxy is a framework. The performance numbers quoted tested mod_proxy_http, not mod_proxy, which doesn't do anything on it's own.
There is no reason why proxy_ajp would be any slower than mod_ajp.
The framework itself could be designed in a way which would end up hurting performance. It did happen in Tomcat in the past, and I don't know about mod_proxy since I haven't looked at it, but it could happen.
I think you should be more open minded about a possible mod_ajp connector (assuming it ends up being a quality connector), and block it on principle. On the other side of the fence, we have yet to find out that mod_proxy will fully fit our needs.
Well I think that we should consider mod_ajp as a jk rewriting for Apache 2.0 (2.1) using all APR/APACHE2.x power.
Since we plan to developp an AJP library, it will ease the task for ajp_proxy and we could validate many points like this and have a release rate independant from the HTTPD 2.0/2.1 rr.
Of course mod_proxy will be extended by Graham and I'm sure he'll put more and more optimisation in it, giving a better proxy framework to HTTPD 2.x.
And when ajp_proxy will be ASF production level ready, it could be included in HTTPD tree.
After that we could probably stop mod_ajp or use it as a features labs....
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
