You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Alistair Young <al...@smo.uhi.ac.uk> on 2005/03/17 10:43:11 UTC
mod_jk2
Was there a reason mod_jk2 was replaced with mod_jk? I found mod_jk2
much easier to use and it's a pity it's gone. Is it just looking for a
maintainer?
Were there advantages of mod_jk2 over mod_jk?
Alistair
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: mod_jk2
Posted by Alistair Young <al...@smo.uhi.ac.uk>.
ok, that's enlightening!
many thanks,
Alistair
On 17 Mar 2005, at 10:13, Mladen Turk wrote:
> Alistair Young wrote:
>> Was there a reason mod_jk2 was replaced with mod_jk?
>
> Too complex, uses APR that behaves badly with Apache1.3,
> and lot more. Browse the mail archive for further details.
>
>> I found mod_jk2 much easier to use and it's a pity it's gone.
>
> No it is not, but that's kind of personal opinion in any case.
>
>> Is it just looking for a maintainer?
>
> No! Please, I'm tired of JK/JK2 discussions :).
> It's a dead code. There are two active connectors projects
> already mod_jk and mod_proxy for Apache 2.2
>
> When AJP14 protocol gets accepted we'll probably have a third one,
> so that's enough, thought.
>
>> Were there advantages of mod_jk2 over mod_jk?
>
> None.
>
> If you *really* like JK2 code, it's a BSD license, so you can
> do with it what ever you wish, just don't call it Apache or Jakarta.
>
> Regards,
> Mladen.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: mod_jk2
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Alistair Young wrote:
> Was there a reason mod_jk2 was replaced with mod_jk?
Too complex, uses APR that behaves badly with Apache1.3,
and lot more. Browse the mail archive for further details.
> I found mod_jk2
> much easier to use and it's a pity it's gone.
No it is not, but that's kind of personal opinion in any case.
> Is it just looking for a
> maintainer?
>
No! Please, I'm tired of JK/JK2 discussions :).
It's a dead code. There are two active connectors projects
already mod_jk and mod_proxy for Apache 2.2
When AJP14 protocol gets accepted we'll probably have a third one,
so that's enough, thought.
> Were there advantages of mod_jk2 over mod_jk?
>
None.
If you *really* like JK2 code, it's a BSD license, so you can
do with it what ever you wish, just don't call it Apache or Jakarta.
Regards,
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org