-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dale,
BuildSmart wrote: > You're shitting me, it can't be that simple, thank you, it works as > configured with my ajp13 worker. Yes, it's that simple. Usually the only problem with mod_jk setup is that people try to add too much complexity at once. I believe that Tomcat is configured out-of-the-box to have the "localhost" virtual host as the default, so this doesn't affect most people. > It still doesn't work with the workerX though, I'm guessing that my > workers.property file needs modification for workerX to work but since > ajp13 works I just need to come up with a name that wont be common and > hard code the properties into the module in an attempt to reduce > configuration making it easier to implement. You should not have to configure "workerX". Your worker named "ajp13" should be just fine. Forget I said anything about "workerX". > It works once I added the default virtualhost option Good. > I've now switched to my FRANKENSTIEN-module and the ajpx13 (modified > ajp13) connector and I can execute the .jsp scripts from the apache > virtualhost DOCUMENT_ROOT's as deep as the directories go Excellent. So, how is your module different from mod_jk? I know you removed some old stuff (ajp12?), but it seems like this ought to work by simply passing httpd's DocumentRoot setting to Tomcat and then overriding some of the JasperServlet methods to find the JSP relative to httpd's DocumentRoot rather than relative to the webapp's deployment directory. Is this roughly what you're doing? Would it be possible to instead simply configure the standard mod_jk module to forward the PATH_TRANSLATED environment variable to Tomcat and have it use that? I'm just looking for what might be a simpler solution: if you only have to distribute a webapp, that's better than distributing a webapp along with an Apache httpd module. > When all is said and done, should this be passed to the tomcat > developers or is it something that is so unique to my requirement that > it's not worth bothering them with it? If it's something that can be relatively easily added (and turned on with configuration) and doesn't significantly change the existing code (which, I guess, you could say is the same thing), then they may accept a patch from you. Try not to be a jerk when submitting it, though. They my already be ignoring you (notice they're no longer replying to you). What, no "thank you"? - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHJy6p9CaO5/Lv0PARAmgLAJ9T8r2Y47eXKzU8eti0paU5z5gyEACeKzz6 JKbus5YYJAXdCb4UTAQ+klY= =/Kbs -----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]
