You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by Dan Sandberg <da...@siliconpoetry.com> on 2001/04/13 04:53:57 UTC
mod_jk advice
I had major problems getting Tomcat 3.2.1 working with Apache 1.3.14, so
I wanted to share my solution.
(For linux users, possibly others) Don't grab the mod_jk.so from the
web site. Compile it yourself. I spent three hours trying to get
things to work with the downloaded version, with no success. No error
messages were generated either. As soon as I compiled it myself, bingo,
everything worked fine.
Now I'm off to continue the torture with mod_webapp. Yaye.
-Dan
Re: mod_jk advice
Posted by Jeff Kilbride <je...@kilbride.com>.
You don't have to compile all of Tomcat to build mod_jk. That's the point,
mod_jk can be built by itself in about 5 minutes -- without ant, jaxp, or
jsse. I haven't seen any posts where the binary Tomcat doesn't work on
Linux, but I've seen a lot where the binary mod_jk doesn't work. If you
built Tomcat from scratch just to get mod_jk to work, then congratulations,
you did good, but I think you went the long way around. That's part of the
problem we're trying to point out. You had a working version of Tomcat, but
problems with mod_jk -- and you went through more pain than necessary to get
it to work.
The kernel has nothing to do with the problems you were having.
--jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "James" <ja...@webfocus.com>
To: <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: mod_jk advice
> I also ran into the same thing two weeks ago.
>
> and don't give me it's easy with makefiles.
>
> Took me no time to figure how to get tomcat up and running on port
> 8080. That was the easy part. The hard part cam when trying to get
> things to work with Apache, that took 3 days and tons reading thru
> everything on what was needed to get the mod_jk. I put my money it has to
> do with Linux's new kernel. I'm not an expert but I would say that is a
start.
>
> There are makefiles and then you have ant ( why I don't know the wheel had
> to be reinvented ) but it was and you have to have this to build tomcat.
>
> - Red Hat Linux release 7.0 (Guinness)
> - Kernel 2.4.1 on a 2-processor i686
> -- apache 1.3.19 (
> -- jakarta-ant 1.3
> -- jakarta-tomcat 3.2.1
> -- jaxp 1.1
> -- jsse 1.0.2
>
> Now that I have it up and running and working the way I want ( basic setup
> in my book ) I'm on to Vhosts and SSL.
>
> James
>
>
> At 09:27 AM 4/13/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >It would be nice if they published what version of Linux/Apache/Tomcat
the
> >available binary was compiled for. I think it's pretty confusing for new
> >users when you say "Hey, here's a binary", but they don't understand all
the
> >reasons why it won't work with their platform. It's such an easy process
to
> >compile your own -- especially with the Makefile's provided. Maybe they
> >should just get rid of the binary and distribute the mod_jk source with
> >every Tomcat distribution. Is that feasible?
> >
> >--jeff
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Tim O'Neil" <ti...@xythos.com>
> >To: <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 9:10 AM
> >Subject: Re: mod_jk advice
> >
> >
> > > At 07:53 PM 4/12/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >I had major problems getting Tomcat 3.2.1 working with Apache 1.3.14,
so
> > > >I wanted to share my solution.
> > > >
> > > >(For linux users, possibly others) Don't grab the mod_jk.so from the
> > > >web site. Compile it yourself. I spent three hours trying to get
> > > >things to work with the downloaded version, with no success. No
error
> > > >messages were generated either. As soon as I compiled it myself,
bingo,
> > > >everything worked fine.
> > > >
> > > >Now I'm off to continue the torture with mod_webapp. Yaye.
> > > >
> > > >-Dan
> > >
> > > Dan is a somewhat good illustration of why you
> > > want to at least have the option of compiling
> > > things yourself, per yesterday's thread on that
> > > topic. I only say "...a somewhat good" example
> > > because we can't say for certain why he had to
> > > take the source route rather than the binary one.
> > >
>
Re: mod_jk advice
Posted by James <ja...@webfocus.com>.
I also ran into the same thing two weeks ago.
and don't give me it's easy with makefiles.
Took me no time to figure how to get tomcat up and running on port
8080. That was the easy part. The hard part cam when trying to get
things to work with Apache, that took 3 days and tons reading thru
everything on what was needed to get the mod_jk. I put my money it has to
do with Linux's new kernel. I'm not an expert but I would say that is a start.
There are makefiles and then you have ant ( why I don't know the wheel had
to be reinvented ) but it was and you have to have this to build tomcat.
- Red Hat Linux release 7.0 (Guinness)
- Kernel 2.4.1 on a 2-processor i686
-- apache 1.3.19 (
-- jakarta-ant 1.3
-- jakarta-tomcat 3.2.1
-- jaxp 1.1
-- jsse 1.0.2
Now that I have it up and running and working the way I want ( basic setup
in my book ) I'm on to Vhosts and SSL.
James
At 09:27 AM 4/13/01 -0700, you wrote:
>It would be nice if they published what version of Linux/Apache/Tomcat the
>available binary was compiled for. I think it's pretty confusing for new
>users when you say "Hey, here's a binary", but they don't understand all the
>reasons why it won't work with their platform. It's such an easy process to
>compile your own -- especially with the Makefile's provided. Maybe they
>should just get rid of the binary and distribute the mod_jk source with
>every Tomcat distribution. Is that feasible?
>
>--jeff
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tim O'Neil" <ti...@xythos.com>
>To: <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
>Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 9:10 AM
>Subject: Re: mod_jk advice
>
>
> > At 07:53 PM 4/12/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> > >I had major problems getting Tomcat 3.2.1 working with Apache 1.3.14, so
> > >I wanted to share my solution.
> > >
> > >(For linux users, possibly others) Don't grab the mod_jk.so from the
> > >web site. Compile it yourself. I spent three hours trying to get
> > >things to work with the downloaded version, with no success. No error
> > >messages were generated either. As soon as I compiled it myself, bingo,
> > >everything worked fine.
> > >
> > >Now I'm off to continue the torture with mod_webapp. Yaye.
> > >
> > >-Dan
> >
> > Dan is a somewhat good illustration of why you
> > want to at least have the option of compiling
> > things yourself, per yesterday's thread on that
> > topic. I only say "...a somewhat good" example
> > because we can't say for certain why he had to
> > take the source route rather than the binary one.
> >
Re: mod_jk advice
Posted by Tim O'Neil <ti...@xythos.com>.
At 09:27 AM 4/13/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>It would be nice if they published what version of Linux/Apache/Tomcat the
>available binary was compiled for. I think it's pretty confusing for new
>users when you say "Hey, here's a binary", but they don't understand all the
>reasons why it won't work with their platform. It's such an easy process to
>compile your own -- especially with the Makefile's provided. Maybe they
>should just get rid of the binary and distribute the mod_jk source with
>every Tomcat distribution. Is that feasible?
I would think distributing the source would be
much easier than distributing binaries. They
could even distribute the source as a Linux-
style RPM, for those who prefer that platform,
sure.
Re: mod_jk advice
Posted by Jeff Kilbride <je...@kilbride.com>.
It would be nice if they published what version of Linux/Apache/Tomcat the
available binary was compiled for. I think it's pretty confusing for new
users when you say "Hey, here's a binary", but they don't understand all the
reasons why it won't work with their platform. It's such an easy process to
compile your own -- especially with the Makefile's provided. Maybe they
should just get rid of the binary and distribute the mod_jk source with
every Tomcat distribution. Is that feasible?
--jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim O'Neil" <ti...@xythos.com>
To: <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: mod_jk advice
> At 07:53 PM 4/12/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> >I had major problems getting Tomcat 3.2.1 working with Apache 1.3.14, so
> >I wanted to share my solution.
> >
> >(For linux users, possibly others) Don't grab the mod_jk.so from the
> >web site. Compile it yourself. I spent three hours trying to get
> >things to work with the downloaded version, with no success. No error
> >messages were generated either. As soon as I compiled it myself, bingo,
> >everything worked fine.
> >
> >Now I'm off to continue the torture with mod_webapp. Yaye.
> >
> >-Dan
>
> Dan is a somewhat good illustration of why you
> want to at least have the option of compiling
> things yourself, per yesterday's thread on that
> topic. I only say "...a somewhat good" example
> because we can't say for certain why he had to
> take the source route rather than the binary one.
>
Re: mod_jk advice
Posted by Tim O'Neil <ti...@xythos.com>.
At 07:53 PM 4/12/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>I had major problems getting Tomcat 3.2.1 working with Apache 1.3.14, so
>I wanted to share my solution.
>
>(For linux users, possibly others) Don't grab the mod_jk.so from the
>web site. Compile it yourself. I spent three hours trying to get
>things to work with the downloaded version, with no success. No error
>messages were generated either. As soon as I compiled it myself, bingo,
>everything worked fine.
>
>Now I'm off to continue the torture with mod_webapp. Yaye.
>
>-Dan
Dan is a somewhat good illustration of why you
want to at least have the option of compiling
things yourself, per yesterday's thread on that
topic. I only say "...a somewhat good" example
because we can't say for certain why he had to
take the source route rather than the binary one.