You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Gomez Henri <hg...@slib.fr> on 2001/09/11 01:03:32 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Removal of mod_jk for Apache 2.0 from jakarta-tomcat f or Tomcat 3.3
En réponse à cmanolache@yahoo.com:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> > "GOMEZ Henri" <hg...@slib.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > Ryan to became more than just a contributer :))))
> >
> > This is the third time we agree on something in less than 24 hours.
> This
> > implies that either I'm getting old, or just plain silly...
>
> Now, if you could agree on merging mod_webapp and mod_jk, that would
> be
> something...
I'm ok for that, may be by merging ajp14 and warp (ajp20).
We could have this protocol implementation in mod_jk
and mod_webapp :)
I'm serious here...
Benefits :
- with mod_jk, you'll gain AP1.3/AP2.0/IIS/NES/IPLANET/DOMINO,
fault-tolerance, load-balancing, JNI and a good old and known modules.
- with mod_webapp, you're right on the future with goodies like APR.
And may be tomcat 4.0 could also add ajp13 support from works in JTC ?
The best of both world....
PS: Something goes crasy these days, on tomcat list, what do you think about
this Pier (known as my worst enemy :)
-
Henri Gomez ___[_]____
EMAIL : hgomez@slib.fr (. .)
PGP KEY : 697ECEDD ...oOOo..(_)..oOOo...
PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
Re: [VOTE] Removal of mod_jk for Apache 2.0 from jakarta-tomcat f
or Tomcat 3.3
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
"Ryan Bloom" <rb...@covalent.net> wrote:
> Well, I'm new to the list, but I like to veto things too. Somebody point me
> at something I can veto....... :-)
You can always veto your committer status... :) :) :)
Pier
Re: [VOTE] Removal of mod_jk for Apache 2.0 from jakarta-tomcat f or Tomcat 3.3
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
On Monday 10 September 2001 16:15, Christopher Cain wrote:
> Gomez Henri wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > PS: Something goes crasy these days, on tomcat list, what do you think
> > about this Pier (known as my worst enemy :)
>
> Something is indeed a little bizarre on the list today, mon ami. Maybe
> because Craig isn't here to keep us in line =)
>
> a) There are now four key people seriously discussing a partial merge of
> mod_jk and mod_webapp
>
> b) Henri and Pier are agreeing on all sorts of things
>
> c) The 3.3 guys are congratulating the 4.0 guys and vice-versa
>
> d) There have been about 15 votes in last 24 hours
>
> e) _I'm_ the short-tempered one, for a change
>
> The only reason I know for sure that the world is still spinning is that
> Jon is still vetoing things ;-)
Well, I'm new to the list, but I like to veto things too. Somebody point me at
something I can veto....... :-)
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [VOTE] Removal of mod_jk for Apache 2.0 from jakarta-tomcat f
or Tomcat 3.3
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
"Christopher Cain" <cc...@mhsoftware.com> wrote:
> Something is indeed a little bizarre on the list today, mon ami. Maybe
> because Craig isn't here to keep us in line =)
No, I believe we have to thank Jon for that... I believe that raising
another flame war at this point made us all realize that probably we _could_
work together somehow... The releases are out/planned, a biiiiig relief
valve... We might not agree on ANYTHING, but....
> a) There are now four key people seriously discussing a partial merge of
> mod_jk and mod_webapp
Oh yes...
> b) Henri and Pier are agreeing on all sorts of things
Weirdest 24 hours ever (well, since me and Peter Donald got along, anyhow!)
> c) The 3.3 guys are congratulating the 4.0 guys and vice-versa
Well, a release 's a release :)
> d) There have been about 15 votes in last 24 hours
More than that
> e) _I'm_ the short-tempered one, for a change
No, you're not...
> The only reason I know for sure that the world is still spinning is that
> Jon is still vetoing things ;-)
Ah, that's NEVER going to change...
Pier
Re: [VOTE] Removal of mod_jk for Apache 2.0 from jakarta-tomcat f or Tomcat 3.3
Posted by Christopher Cain <cc...@mhsoftware.com>.
Gomez Henri wrote:
[snip]
> PS: Something goes crasy these days, on tomcat list, what do you think
> about this Pier (known as my worst enemy :)
Something is indeed a little bizarre on the list today, mon ami. Maybe
because Craig isn't here to keep us in line =)
a) There are now four key people seriously discussing a partial merge of
mod_jk and mod_webapp
b) Henri and Pier are agreeing on all sorts of things
c) The 3.3 guys are congratulating the 4.0 guys and vice-versa
d) There have been about 15 votes in last 24 hours
e) _I'm_ the short-tempered one, for a change
The only reason I know for sure that the world is still spinning is that
Jon is still vetoing things ;-)
- Christopher
/**
* Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux, et fondez vous en eau!
* La moitié de ma vie a mis l'autre au tombeau.
* ---Corneille
*/
Re: [VOTE] Removal of mod_jk for Apache 2.0 from jakarta-tomcat f
or Tomcat 3.3
Posted by Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com>.
On Mon, 2001-09-10 at 16:48, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> Why don't we keep a NON-APR (JK), and progress works on APR based on WebApp?
> Joining AJPv14 and WARP?
The important thing in mod_jk is the modularity, the fact that it
supports multiple server adapters and multiple protocols. This part has
nothing ( or little ) to do with APR or ajp14 or warp - and it is the
part I absolutely want preserved ( and improved ).
I'm quite familiar with webapp ( it's allways important to know the
competition :-), wa_request is the only serious obstacle (IMHO ).
If you can merge the request representation ( and callbacks ) to use the
same names, the rest will fit perfectly.
Even in the current status, with part of jk using it's own portability
routines and webapp using apr, there is no other problem in putting them
togheter, except for implemeting the glue code needed to add any new
protocol in jk.
Regarding the module itself- things are reasonably similar.
Costin
Re: [VOTE] Removal of mod_jk for Apache 2.0 from jakarta-tomcat f
or Tomcat 3.3
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
"Gomez Henri" <hg...@slib.fr> wrote:
> I'm ok for that, may be by merging ajp14 and warp (ajp20).
Ok... I can agree with that...
> We could have this protocol implementation in mod_jk
> and mod_webapp :)
Sure do...
> I'm serious here...
Me too...
> - with mod_jk, you'll gain AP1.3/AP2.0/IIS/NES/IPLANET/DOMINO,
> fault-tolerance, load-balancing, JNI and a good old and known modules.
Yeah...
> - with mod_webapp, you're right on the future with goodies like APR.
> And may be tomcat 4.0 could also add ajp13 support from works in JTC ?
Ok... I have no clue on how JK works, but fairly know how to take the shit
out on TC side... I'll give a shot to JK and AJPv13, run watchdog and
tester, at the same time, I'd like for you to look at WebApp and tell me
what's wrong with it...
Why don't we keep a NON-APR (JK), and progress works on APR based on WebApp?
Joining AJPv14 and WARP?
> The best of both world....
Definitely...
> PS: Something goes crasy these days, on tomcat list, what do you think about
> this Pier (known as my worst enemy :)
I believe it's because we are all so tired about fighting, and going out
with the two trees (3.3 and 4.0) more or less at the same time, offloaded
the pressure _a_lot_... And we don't want to be bitchy with each other?
Pier (feeling awkward!)