-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eric,
Eric B. wrote: >> Dude, just build your own. Here are the steps to installing a >> binary: > Thanks for the input. I didn't build my own for 2 reasons: 1) don't > have any cc / gcc on my RHEL linux server - it is used purely for > production and only have proven stable things on it from the RHEL > updates. Leaving gcc off your production service is a good idea, but I don't buy your "stability" argument. Red Hat certainly has a stable gcc available for their distro. You can always compile it on one machine and copy it to another. > 2) I was under the impression that it would only work with 2.0.59 > version of apache - that it had some code in there that would not > compile / function with 2.0.52. You /must/ use the proper major version number (2.0.x versus 2.2.x), but you can probably use the same .so for many point releases without a problem. It's always best to have a perfectly-matching shared library, though; you might find that there was a bug in a version of Apache that caused an odd linking or something, and you could get bitten by that. > I guess given your info, I can try to compile it on another server > and see where that gets me. That's what my recommendation would be. You should test enough that you trust your modules, anyway, so you can feel free to skip the compilation step and use the pre-built binary. I just always recommend building it yourself, even if the "correct" binary already exists. You can even compile it to run more efficiently on your processor, choose your MPM, etc. > Our tomcat apps are self-contained (non-exploded) wars, and mapping > each individual extension becomes a challenge (ie: .jsp, .jspa, jsps, > .jpg, .js, .....) , so we found it easier just to map the entire > context. Agreed. I didn't realize that you were using Tomcat to serve everything including static content. You can always do: JkMount /context/* JkUnMount /context/whatever > In fact, I don't quite see the advantage of your defn - perhaps I am > missing something. Why do you even bother alias'ing /tomcat at all? This is so Apache httpd can serve static content, which is something you don't need, so you can ignore it. > I guess it is so that anything not > mapped to the JKworker will be served from the > /path/to/tomcat/webapps/ROOT directory directly? Is there any > performance enhancement from doing it that way? If you're going to front Tomcat with Apache httpd, then serving static content from httpd is more efficient because you don't have to re-package and forward the request to have Tomcat re-parse everything and start the process over again. > Would going about it in the "opposite" direction be a bad idea? Ie: > JkMount the entire context and JkUnmount the specific files / > extensions that you don't want mounted? No, that's perfectly acceptable. I just tend to thing about things in terms of "okay, what do I /want/ Tomcat to serve", rather than the other way around. But then again, I want httpd to serve my static content and Tomcat to serve only my servlets. - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG6CLa9CaO5/Lv0PARAg9vAKC5phnzcjgHxnXIB/0iq5smhPPXagCfR0Dy Ws+ICYBgYSxlLzWUTcNPr44= =UlMm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
