RE: Apache + mod_jk (ajp13) + Tomcat: no "Expires" header in the response

["Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Justin Rowles wrote:

> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:22:38 -0000
> From: Justin Rowles <JR...@ordsvy.gov.uk>
> Reply-To: Tomcat Users List <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> To: 'Tomcat Users List' <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Apache + mod_jk (ajp13) + Tomcat: no "Expires" header in the
>       response
>
> > In general I agree with you and I never put static HTML pages
> > under Tomcat,
> > but the pages I'm talking about now are created by Tomcat itself after
> > invoking a servlet to store the result of the invocation... I
> > didn't like
> > the idea that Tomcat would had saved these HTML files under Apache
> > DocumentRoot...
>
> That's what I'd do.  Tomcat's not intended to be anything like Apache when
> serving static stuff, so you might as well not give it the job.
>

That attitude is *way* too simplistic to reflect reality for all use
cases.

Tomcat can serve static resources just fine.  The only question is, which
way supports the minimum performance standard that you need?  If it does,
you should set things up that way.

In other words, if Tomcat serves static resources "fast enough" for your
needs, and you don't need the other features that Apache supports, *why*
do you put yourself through the pain of configuring the two to work
together?

If you need Apache, fine -- go ahead and use it.  If you don't, save
yourself some pain.  But you've got a choice.  Don't believe people who
tell you that you don't.

> J.

Craig McClanahan


--
To unsubscribe:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Troubles with the list: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>