You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2007/03/03 00:36:11 UTC
JK2 confusion
Since JK2 is now off the map, does it make sense to update
http://www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-connectors/
and simply remove jk2? The user could still dig these up if they
wanted over at
http://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-connectors/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: JK2 confusion
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Yes I agree, that it's time for this. We could also remove mod_jk2 from
the download page and add a text line saying, that mod_jk2 is deprecated
and is only available from the archive (which itself has a link on that
page).
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> Since JK2 is now off the map, does it make sense to update
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-connectors/
>
> and simply remove jk2? The user could still dig these up if they
> wanted over at
>
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-connectors/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: JK2 confusion
Posted by Jean-frederic Clere <jf...@gmail.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>Since JK2 is now off the map, does it make sense to update
>
>http://www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-connectors/
>
>and simply remove jk2? The user could still dig these up if they
>wanted over at
>
>http://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-connectors/
>
>
Done I have just left a note that mod_jk2 can be found in the archive area.
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: JK2 confusion
Posted by Jean-Frederic <jf...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 21:26 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
> > Not even that. We are talking for more then a year for
> > a next generation binary http(s) protocol.
> >
> > Almost everyone agreed that we need
> > at least few things:
> > 1. Encryption
> > 2. Variable sized messages
> > 3. Client connection close notification.
>
> Talk about a hijaak :)
>
> I'm going to argue; 'no', but let me offer my rational...
So you are suggesting to add http/https to mod_jk.
How would you handle the SSL attributes when using http/https?
javax.servlet.request.X509Certificate
javax.servlet.request.cipher_suite
javax.servlet.request.ssl_session
javax.servlet.request.key_size
Adding 4 Headers and a valve when using mod_proxy and Tomcat solves the
problem with Apache httpd. Would you do the same with other web servers?
>
> 1. These features are available through the HTTP connector which is
> easier to troubleshoot (sniff) and already standardized.
>
> 2. The HTTP connector was somewhat neglected; to ensure that it is
> completely conformant needs more eyes, not fewer. More effort
> at AJP 1.x is less effort towards HTTP/1.1 conformance. (This
> is not only a developer issue, but speaks to how well exercised
> the HTTP connector is with many users choosing AJP and not seeing
> or reporting specific quirks.)
>
> 3. We would honestly win more bandwidth from fully supporting the
> content encoding deflate from tomcat to the proxy server than from
> the few bytes saved with AJP. And SSL Encryption + deflate provided
> by TLS today will already give you this win, so binary protocol
> is really not that significant (OpenSSL 0.9.8 supports it, don't ask
> me if JSSE does.)
>
> 4. Waka. Why reinvent a wheel in motion? With the new focus at the
> httpd Amsterdam code to break apart http from apache, we are adding
> wiggle room for some to come behind and code to Roy's binary http
> protocol plan. The difference?
Already a link to some doc?
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
> Waka when done will be an accepted
> spec, while I don't see that ever happening to AJP.
>
> :)
>
> That said, those are technical arguments against but I have no vote
> here - I'll leave it to you all to weight these against your itches
> and designs.
>
> Bill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: JK2 confusion
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Mladen Turk wrote:
> Not even that. We are talking for more then a year for
> a next generation binary http(s) protocol.
>
> Almost everyone agreed that we need
> at least few things:
> 1. Encryption
> 2. Variable sized messages
> 3. Client connection close notification.
Talk about a hijaak :)
I'm going to argue; 'no', but let me offer my rational...
1. These features are available through the HTTP connector which is
easier to troubleshoot (sniff) and already standardized.
2. The HTTP connector was somewhat neglected; to ensure that it is
completely conformant needs more eyes, not fewer. More effort
at AJP 1.x is less effort towards HTTP/1.1 conformance. (This
is not only a developer issue, but speaks to how well exercised
the HTTP connector is with many users choosing AJP and not seeing
or reporting specific quirks.)
3. We would honestly win more bandwidth from fully supporting the
content encoding deflate from tomcat to the proxy server than from
the few bytes saved with AJP. And SSL Encryption + deflate provided
by TLS today will already give you this win, so binary protocol
is really not that significant (OpenSSL 0.9.8 supports it, don't ask
me if JSSE does.)
4. Waka. Why reinvent a wheel in motion? With the new focus at the
httpd Amsterdam code to break apart http from apache, we are adding
wiggle room for some to come behind and code to Roy's binary http
protocol plan. The difference? Waka when done will be an accepted
spec, while I don't see that ever happening to AJP.
:)
That said, those are technical arguments against but I have no vote
here - I'll leave it to you all to weight these against your itches
and designs.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: JK2 confusion
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Since JK2 is now off the map, does it make sense to update
>
Not even that. We are talking for more then a year for
a next generation binary http(s) protocol.
Almost everyone agreed that we need
at least few things:
1. Encryption
2. Variable sized messages
3. Client connection close notification.
Regards,
--
Mladen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org