You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com> on 2011/07/15 10:23:27 UTC
RedHat and mod_jk
Hi.
Recently, other people and myself were looking for a pre-packaged mod_jk binary for a
RedHat RHELS system.
As a result of some investigation (by Mark Eggers on one side, and an independent sysadmin
of my customer on the other side), things seem to boil down to (largely quoted) :
"
In the RedHat product "Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server" (RHELS), there is no repository
containing a pre-packaged mod_jk module.
To obtain such a package, the client has to purchase the separate RedHat package "JBoss
Enterprise Web Server", which contains mod_jk.
"
I would suppose that RedHat has good lawyers, and that they are "allowed" to do such a
thing. Personally, I find this a bit "cheeky", specially from a company that presents
itself as a champion of Open Source.
It is not an unmitigated feeling, because on the other hand I also recognise that mod_jk
is a complex piece of software, and that supporting it for customers certainly has a cost.
But whatever the real merits of my personal feelings in the matter,
there are people (even sysadmins) who are comfortable with the idea of installing a
software package from sources; but there are also many people who simply do not have the
time to go through the hassle, and people who are uncomfortable with the installation of
such packages (because of maintenance reasons, patches etc.), and people who are just not
allowed to install anything that is not part of the standard corporate repository.
In the practice thus, it probably means that a number of people will no longer use mod_jk
on RHEL systems in the future, and I find this a pity, because even from a purely
technical point of view, it is always better to have some alternatives. And there are
things which you can do with mod_jk, which you cannot with mod_proxy_ajp and/or
mod_proxy_http (and probably vice-versa).
Anyway, I wonder if anyone here has another opinion on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Leon Kolchinsky <lk...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On RedHat installation of mod_jk is as easy as:
1.
# yum install httpd httpd-devel gcc gcc-c++
2.
Go to http://tomcat.apache.org/download-connectors.cgi and download the
source code (I'm giving an example with 1.2.31 version)
# wget
http://apache.mirror.aussiehq.net.au//tomcat/tomcat-connectors/jk/source/jk-1.2.31/tomcat-connectors-1.2.31-src.tar.gz
3.
# tar -xvzf tomcat-connectors-1.2.31-src.tar.gz
Read docs/webserver_howto/apache.html or native/BUILDING.txt for options.
# cd tomcat-connectors-1.2.31-src/native/
# which apxs
# ./configure --with-apxs=/usr/sbin/apxs --enable-api-compatibility
# make
# make install
You don't need any Java packages for that.
Also my way of installing JAVA on RedHat (Since many Apps support only Sun's
JDK/JRE):
JAVA INSTALLATION:
------------------
1. Go to http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.htmland
download latest Self Extracting Installer.
Put it all under /opt or any other dir. you choose.
[root@vera126 downloads]# ls -l /opt
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 85052342 May 19 11:15 jdk-6u25-linux-i586.bin
[root@vera126 downloads]# cd /opt
# sh jdk-6u25-linux-i586.bin
# ln -s jdk1.6.0_25 jdk
# updatedb;locate javac |grep bin
/opt/jdk1.6.0_25/bin/javac
2.
Here /opt/jdk is the actual JAVA_HOME for your machine. Note this as you
will need it to run the following commands.
alternatives --install /usr/bin/java java /opt/jdk/bin/java 100
alternatives --install /usr/bin/jar jar /opt/jdk/bin/jar 100
alternatives --install /usr/bin/javac javac /opt/jdk/bin/javac 100
3.
Finally you should configure alternative to use Sun's JVM as the default
JVM. To do this type:
# /usr/sbin/alternatives --config java
4.
In the future when we update Java, we only need to update this symlink (for
JAVA_HOME)
/opt/jdk
5.
Last check:
[root@vera126 opt]# java -version
java version "1.6.0_25"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_25-b06)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 20.0-b11, mixed mode, sharing)
I've already seen members of this list giving good tips on that.
Cheers,
Leon Kolchinsky
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 18:23, André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Recently, other people and myself were looking for a pre-packaged mod_jk
> binary for a RedHat RHELS system.
>
> As a result of some investigation (by Mark Eggers on one side, and an
> independent sysadmin of my customer on the other side), things seem to boil
> down to (largely quoted) :
>
> "
> In the RedHat product "Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server" (RHELS), there is
> no repository containing a pre-packaged mod_jk module.
>
> To obtain such a package, the client has to purchase the separate RedHat
> package "JBoss Enterprise Web Server", which contains mod_jk.
> "
>
> I would suppose that RedHat has good lawyers, and that they are "allowed"
> to do such a thing. Personally, I find this a bit "cheeky", specially from
> a company that presents itself as a champion of Open Source.
> It is not an unmitigated feeling, because on the other hand I also
> recognise that mod_jk is a complex piece of software, and that supporting it
> for customers certainly has a cost.
>
> But whatever the real merits of my personal feelings in the matter,
> there are people (even sysadmins) who are comfortable with the idea of
> installing a software package from sources; but there are also many people
> who simply do not have the time to go through the hassle, and people who are
> uncomfortable with the installation of such packages (because of maintenance
> reasons, patches etc.), and people who are just not allowed to install
> anything that is not part of the standard corporate repository.
>
> In the practice thus, it probably means that a number of people will no
> longer use mod_jk on RHEL systems in the future, and I find this a pity,
> because even from a purely technical point of view, it is always better to
> have some alternatives. And there are things which you can do with mod_jk,
> which you cannot with mod_proxy_ajp and/or mod_proxy_http (and probably
> vice-versa).
>
> Anyway, I wonder if anyone here has another opinion on the matter.
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.**apache.org<us...@tomcat.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Mark Eggers <it...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>
> To: users@tomcat.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 12:24 PM
> Subject: Re: RedHat and mod_jk
>
> On 15.07.2011 20:54, Mark Eggers wrote:
>> I find it a bit odd as well. It appears that mod_jk was never really a part
> of Fedora. jpackage.org maintained an RPM for Apache 2.0 and RedHat platforms
> until about Fedora 3 or Fedora 4, and then it was dropped. I don't find a
> package in Fedora 14, RHELS 4, or RHELS5.
>>
>> I guess this could be asked on the Fedora developers' mailing list or
> IRC (which feeds into Fedora, which feeds into RHELS).
>>
>> I wonder if there's a problem building mod_jk with OpenJDK. I have
> Oracle's JDK installed here, so I don't know.
>
> You don't need Java to build mod_jk. Only Apache and APR including dev
> packets.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
Oops, right. I was looking at libtcnative to make sure I had all the dependencies listed.
Sorry 'bout that :-(
/mde/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 15.07.2011 20:54, Mark Eggers wrote:
> I find it a bit odd as well. It appears that mod_jk was never really a part of Fedora. jpackage.org maintained an RPM for Apache 2.0 and RedHat platforms until about Fedora 3 or Fedora 4, and then it was dropped. I don't find a package in Fedora 14, RHELS 4, or RHELS5.
>
> I guess this could be asked on the Fedora developers' mailing list or IRC (which feeds into Fedora, which feeds into RHELS).
>
> I wonder if there's a problem building mod_jk with OpenJDK. I have Oracle's JDK installed here, so I don't know.
You don't need Java to build mod_jk. Only Apache and APR including dev
packets.
Regards,
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Dark Before Dawn <da...@gmail.com>.
After some API reading I found getResourcePaths().
http://download.oracle.com/javaee/1.3/api/javax/servlet/ServletContext.html#getResourcePaths%28java.lang.String%29
Cheers
Darky
Hi there,
I am trying to list files and directories within an war-file i.e
images/summer2010 images/winter2010. The war-file is deployed on a
tomcat 7 instance with unpackWARs="false".
Since I have no exposed filesystem getRealPath will return null. So
I tried to use getResourceAsStream wich works fine for files but not
for directories.
My other idea was to use getResource and URL/URI to get a
java.io.File via JNDI. But this file is not a file nor a directory.
Cheers
Darky
RE: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by "Leffingwell, Jonathan R CTR FRCSE, JAX 7.2.2" <jo...@navy.mil>.
FYI...
I got the S.A. to compile Apache, and then to compile mod_jk. It works, just like you guys said that it would. Thanks for ALL of your help! :-)
JL
-----Original Message-----
From: André Warnier [mailto:aw@ice-sa.com]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:33 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Christopher Schultz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mark,
>
> On 7/16/2011 12:50 AM, Mark Eggers wrote:
>> I've been successful in the past in getting permission to build
>> critical components locally. I've also been in environments where
>> this was strictly forbidden, even at the expense of not meeting
>> business requirements and/or exposing the infrastructure to known
>> security risks. Meeting requirements is preferred (in my book).
>>
>> It also appears that more and more admins are uncomfortable with
>> building, installing, and then managing systems with locally
>> installed software. This goes back to the challenge that the
>> original poster had. Why an admin would balk at learning how to do
>> this is another question . . .
>
> Fortunately for me, I'm the admin *and* I get to make these kinds of
> decisions.
>
> I just don't feel like keeping MySQL up-to-date myself. :)
>
A reason why admins "balk" may be because they are asked to take care of more and more
systems (due to virtualisation e.g.), and can no longer afford to spend the time to do that.
Anyway, whatever their reasons, a number of admins will not do it, and the practical
consequence in this case will be a decrease of the usage of mod_jk.
The basic point is : mod_jk is not included in the RedHat standard Apache/Tomcat packages.
But maybe this is just an oversight of RedHat, and maybe with a little nudge, they may be
persuaded to include it again.
Does anyone know how one would go about trying to nudge them in this direction ?
Alternatively, what would it take for mod_jk to be (maybe again) part of the standard
Apache httpd distribution ? (so that these "packagers" would include it in the next Apache
httpd packaged version without even having to think about it).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Mark Eggers <it...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message -----
> From: André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>
> To: Tomcat Users List <us...@tomcat.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 8:33 AM
> Subject: Re: RedHat and mod_jk
>
> Christopher Schultz wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> On 7/16/2011 12:50 AM, Mark Eggers wrote:
>>> I've been successful in the past in getting permission to build
> critical components locally. I've also been in environments where this was
> strictly forbidden, even at the expense of not meeting business requirements
> and/or exposing the infrastructure to known security risks. Meeting requirements
> is preferred (in my book).
>>>
>>> It also appears that more and more admins are uncomfortable with
> building, installing, and then managing systems with locally installed software.
> This goes back to the challenge that the
>>> original poster had. Why an admin would balk at learning how to do
>>> this is another question . . .
>>
>> Fortunately for me, I'm the admin *and* I get to make these kinds of
>> decisions.
>>
>> I just don't feel like keeping MySQL up-to-date myself. :)
>>
>
> A reason why admins "balk" may be because they are asked to take care
> of more and more systems (due to virtualisation e.g.), and can no longer afford
> to spend the time to do that.
>
> Anyway, whatever their reasons, a number of admins will not do it, and the
> practical consequence in this case will be a decrease of the usage of mod_jk.
>
> The basic point is : mod_jk is not included in the RedHat standard Apache/Tomcat
> packages.
> But maybe this is just an oversight of RedHat, and maybe with a little nudge,
> they may be persuaded to include it again.
> Does anyone know how one would go about trying to nudge them in this direction ?
>
> Alternatively, what would it take for mod_jk to be (maybe again) part of the
> standard Apache httpd distribution ? (so that these "packagers" would
> include it in the next Apache httpd packaged version without even having to
> think about it).
I noticed that it's not a part of the Fedora (basically RedHat's test platform) distribution either.
If it's a part of the Apache HTTPD distribution, more Linux distributions might pick it up. Just glancing at my installation, it seems that modules not shipped with Fedora's packaging are modules that are separate from Apache HTTPD (with the notable exception of mod_ssl).
For RedHat, the process is roughly:
1) Get the new code accepted upstream.
2) Get it included in Fedora.
3) Get it included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
This is taken from a RedHat magazine article, and discusses bug fixes, new features, and new packages. I'm guessing that item 1) applies to bug fixes and new features.
So, possibly getting the Fedora team to accept an RPM for mod_jk would be the place to start. They'll probably want a 32-bit, 64-bit, and source packages. They'll also probably want a maintainer for those packages.
The IRC channel #fedora-devel on FreeNode might be a good place to start. I don't know how other distributions are handled.
Chris, I'm just a lowly systems architect (have been an admin in a former life). Building MySQL was always low on my list of things to do. However, it never seemed as difficult as building PHP :-p.
Andre, managing lots of configurations is a pain. I've used custom processes/tools as well as commercial tools. Nothing seems to work effortlessly ;-). So mod_jk builds may be the (very lightweight) straw that breaks an admin's back.
. . . . just my two cents.
/mde/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
André,
On 7/18/2011 11:33 AM, André Warnier wrote:
> The basic point is : mod_jk is not included in the RedHat standard
> Apache/Tomcat packages. But maybe this is just an oversight of
> RedHat, and maybe with a little nudge, they may be persuaded to
> include it again. Does anyone know how one would go about trying to
> nudge them in this direction ?
There are a few Tomcat committers who work directly for RedHat. Perhaps
they could advocate.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk4l9S8ACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PAjFwCgpaHDpbGtmFMKfvHFKhbLwQqi
E/8An2MzsFepWsGEPJ3UV0WmrNXpH6b9
=Li54
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>.
Christopher Schultz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mark,
>
> On 7/16/2011 12:50 AM, Mark Eggers wrote:
>> I've been successful in the past in getting permission to build
>> critical components locally. I've also been in environments where
>> this was strictly forbidden, even at the expense of not meeting
>> business requirements and/or exposing the infrastructure to known
>> security risks. Meeting requirements is preferred (in my book).
>>
>> It also appears that more and more admins are uncomfortable with
>> building, installing, and then managing systems with locally
>> installed software. This goes back to the challenge that the
>> original poster had. Why an admin would balk at learning how to do
>> this is another question . . .
>
> Fortunately for me, I'm the admin *and* I get to make these kinds of
> decisions.
>
> I just don't feel like keeping MySQL up-to-date myself. :)
>
A reason why admins "balk" may be because they are asked to take care of more and more
systems (due to virtualisation e.g.), and can no longer afford to spend the time to do that.
Anyway, whatever their reasons, a number of admins will not do it, and the practical
consequence in this case will be a decrease of the usage of mod_jk.
The basic point is : mod_jk is not included in the RedHat standard Apache/Tomcat packages.
But maybe this is just an oversight of RedHat, and maybe with a little nudge, they may be
persuaded to include it again.
Does anyone know how one would go about trying to nudge them in this direction ?
Alternatively, what would it take for mod_jk to be (maybe again) part of the standard
Apache httpd distribution ? (so that these "packagers" would include it in the next Apache
httpd packaged version without even having to think about it).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark,
On 7/16/2011 12:50 AM, Mark Eggers wrote:
> I've been successful in the past in getting permission to build
> critical components locally. I've also been in environments where
> this was strictly forbidden, even at the expense of not meeting
> business requirements and/or exposing the infrastructure to known
> security risks. Meeting requirements is preferred (in my book).
>
> It also appears that more and more admins are uncomfortable with
> building, installing, and then managing systems with locally
> installed software. This goes back to the challenge that the
> original poster had. Why an admin would balk at learning how to do
> this is another question . . .
Fortunately for me, I'm the admin *and* I get to make these kinds of
decisions.
I just don't feel like keeping MySQL up-to-date myself. :)
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk4kRrMACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCNagCgnATwmx/Wi0XANU3lfJ6gtgVv
gbIAnjz2+BxYq+lfxwmTTRvOn3zDkIbP
=ki+L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Mark Eggers <it...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>
> To: Tomcat Users List <us...@tomcat.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: RedHat and mod_jk
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thad,
>
> On 7/15/2011 9:59 PM, Thad Humphries wrote:
>> If you rely on RedHat, Novell, OpenSuSE, Unbuntu, etc. you can wait
>> for some things until you are old and gray.
>
> Sing it. We're stuck on MySQL 5.0 in production because of this very
> fact. Sometimes I pine for the days of Gentoo. Only sometimes.
>
>> Worse is to have some update that you haven't screened stomp on
>> something you need.
>
> Most package managers have provisions for holding a package (or the
> whole repo) at a certain level.
>
> Actually, the really nice thing about Debian, for instance, is that
> their releases are all stable (assuming you don't follow Sid like an
> idiot): you should never get stomped with anything. The bad news is that
> you have to wait for a major upgrade in order to get that next version
> of whatever - like MySQL 5.1 :(
>
> - -chris
Yep. I think if you have critical requirements (technical, security, business) that aren't being met by your distribution's package release you have to roll your own. Manage it just like any other software release.
The issues are then mostly management (culpability and support). How those issues are dealt with becomes a matter of business culture.
I've been successful in the past in getting permission to build critical components locally. I've also been in environments where this was strictly forbidden, even at the expense of not meeting business requirements and/or exposing the infrastructure to known security risks. Meeting requirements is preferred (in my book).
It also appears that more and more admins are uncomfortable with building, installing, and then managing systems with locally installed software. This goes back to the challenge that the original poster had. Why an admin would balk at learning how to do this is another question . . .
Friday night ramblings are worth less than two cents . . . ;-)
/mde/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Thad Humphries <th...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Christopher Schultz <
chris@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thad,
>
> On 7/15/2011 9:59 PM, Thad Humphries wrote:
> > If you rely on RedHat, Novell, OpenSuSE, Unbuntu, etc. you can wait
> > for some things until you are old and gray.
>
> Sing it. We're stuck on MySQL 5.0 in production because of this very
> fact. Sometimes I pine for the days of Gentoo. Only sometimes.
>
> > Worse is to have some update that you haven't screened stomp on
> > something you need.
>
Right, but when I roll my own, I can more easily keep multiple versions of a
program--Apache, Tomcat, Java, Firebird RDBMS, etc. and switch between them
if need be. (Life, however, has become easier since someone else here took
over the database stuff. Now I just run whatever version of Firebird
OpenSuSE is installing, and let production worry the final version.)
> Most package managers have provisions for holding a package (or the
> whole repo) at a certain level.
>
> Actually, the really nice thing about Debian, for instance, is that
> their releases are all stable (assuming you don't follow Sid like an
> idiot): you should never get stomped with anything. The bad news is that
> you have to wait for a major upgrade in order to get that next version
> of whatever - like MySQL 5.1 :(
>
> - -chris
>
--
"Hell hath no limits, nor is circumscrib'd In one self-place; but where we
are is hell, And where hell is, there must we ever be" --Christopher
Marlowe, *Doctor Faustus* (v, 121-24)
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thad,
On 7/15/2011 9:59 PM, Thad Humphries wrote:
> If you rely on RedHat, Novell, OpenSuSE, Unbuntu, etc. you can wait
> for some things until you are old and gray.
Sing it. We're stuck on MySQL 5.0 in production because of this very
fact. Sometimes I pine for the days of Gentoo. Only sometimes.
> Worse is to have some update that you haven't screened stomp on
> something you need.
Most package managers have provisions for holding a package (or the
whole repo) at a certain level.
Actually, the really nice thing about Debian, for instance, is that
their releases are all stable (assuming you don't follow Sid like an
idiot): you should never get stomped with anything. The bad news is that
you have to wait for a major upgrade in order to get that next version
of whatever - like MySQL 5.1 :(
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk4hDu4ACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCo5QCfVVYRpdFV57ozYxayaYiG++6o
z6UAn0++hlbaUR0SeP51s8zDxO/JVfOP
=TssM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Thad Humphries <th...@gmail.com>.
It's been my experience that it's best *not* to rely on the distro for any
mission critical piece of software. Either download the binary from a
trusted source or build it yourself. If you rely on RedHat, Novell,
OpenSuSE, Unbuntu, etc. you can wait for some things until you are old and
gray. Worse is to have some update that you haven't screened stomp on
something you need.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Mark Eggers <it...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> Sounds like this is a topic that could be brought up on the Fedora
> development IRC (or mailing list). I imagine the immediate response would
> be, "If you're interested, why don't you build and maintain the package".
>
> I can't see any technical reason for RedHat not to provide a package. The
> RPMs required for building it already exist in the distribution, the actual
> software build is trivial, and they already provide RPMs for things like
> mod_perl, mod_python, and svn.
> ...
--
"Hell hath no limits, nor is circumscrib'd In one self-place; but where we
are is hell, And where hell is, there must we ever be" --Christopher
Marlowe, *Doctor Faustus* (v, 121-24)
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Mark Eggers <it...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>
> To: Tomcat Users List <us...@tomcat.apache.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 12:55 PM
> Subject: Re: RedHat and mod_jk
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mark,
>
> On 7/15/2011 2:54 PM, Mark Eggers wrote:
>> I wonder if there's a problem building mod_jk with OpenJDK. I have
>> Oracle's JDK installed here, so I don't know.
>
> mod_jk does not have any Java components. The tomcat-connectors package
> does have some Java code in it, but it looks like more of a toy than
> anything else. It's not part of the httpd module.
>
> - -chris
Chris,
Yep, see my previous mea culpa.
Sounds like this is a topic that could be brought up on the Fedora development IRC (or mailing list). I imagine the immediate response would be, "If you're interested, why don't you build and maintain the package".
I can't see any technical reason for RedHat not to provide a package. The RPMs required for building it already exist in the distribution, the actual software build is trivial, and they already provide RPMs for things like mod_perl, mod_python, and svn.
/mde/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark,
On 7/15/2011 2:54 PM, Mark Eggers wrote:
> I wonder if there's a problem building mod_jk with OpenJDK. I have
> Oracle's JDK installed here, so I don't know.
mod_jk does not have any Java components. The tomcat-connectors package
does have some Java code in it, but it looks like more of a toy than
anything else. It's not part of the httpd module.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk4gmxoACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PCTsgCdGfNYaKTgL99bH2nbZTCkM1E2
lJcAnR63jci/jXAVMWqPGA/5esl0BQOj
=Zi7U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Mark Eggers <it...@yahoo.com>.
I find it a bit odd as well. It appears that mod_jk was never really a part of Fedora. jpackage.org maintained an RPM for Apache 2.0 and RedHat platforms until about Fedora 3 or Fedora 4, and then it was dropped. I don't find a package in Fedora 14, RHELS 4, or RHELS5.
I guess this could be asked on the Fedora developers' mailing list or IRC (which feeds into Fedora, which feeds into RHELS).
I wonder if there's a problem building mod_jk with OpenJDK. I have Oracle's JDK installed here, so I don't know.
. . . . just my two cents.
/mde/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Martin,
On 7/15/2011 7:40 AM, Martin Gainty wrote:
> not having (publicly available) apt/rpm package for at least one of
> the mod_jk distros will cause RH to lose market-share
RHEL is one of the only Linux distros that are supported by some managed
hosting providers like RackSpace. I don't think RH is hurting in market
share in spite of them not providing a package for free.
As André says, RH does provide a package... you just have to pay for an
special license to get it.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk4gmjsACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PADVACfZiMkn91J2wnE9l2O4w74OHfU
mCQAoIhDeTvSGdjyh0xTvJW2USSy/+Mw
=lLzg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
RE: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Martin Gainty <mg...@hotmail.com>.
not having (publicly available) apt/rpm package for at least one of the mod_jk distros will cause RH to lose market-share
Martin --
______________________________________________
Note de déni et de confidentialité
Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusion non autorisée ou la copie de ceci est interdite. Ce message sert à l'information seulement et n'aura pas n'importe quel effet légalement obligatoire. Étant donné que les email peuvent facilement être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité pour le contenu fourni.
> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:23:27 +0200
> From: aw@ice-sa.com
> To: users@tomcat.apache.org
> Subject: RedHat and mod_jk
>
> Hi.
>
> Recently, other people and myself were looking for a pre-packaged mod_jk binary for a
> RedHat RHELS system.
>
> As a result of some investigation (by Mark Eggers on one side, and an independent sysadmin
> of my customer on the other side), things seem to boil down to (largely quoted) :
>
> "
> In the RedHat product "Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server" (RHELS), there is no repository
> containing a pre-packaged mod_jk module.
>
> To obtain such a package, the client has to purchase the separate RedHat package "JBoss
> Enterprise Web Server", which contains mod_jk.
> "
>
> I would suppose that RedHat has good lawyers, and that they are "allowed" to do such a
> thing. Personally, I find this a bit "cheeky", specially from a company that presents
> itself as a champion of Open Source.
> It is not an unmitigated feeling, because on the other hand I also recognise that mod_jk
> is a complex piece of software, and that supporting it for customers certainly has a cost.
>
> But whatever the real merits of my personal feelings in the matter,
> there are people (even sysadmins) who are comfortable with the idea of installing a
> software package from sources; but there are also many people who simply do not have the
> time to go through the hassle, and people who are uncomfortable with the installation of
> such packages (because of maintenance reasons, patches etc.), and people who are just not
> allowed to install anything that is not part of the standard corporate repository.
>
> In the practice thus, it probably means that a number of people will no longer use mod_jk
> on RHEL systems in the future, and I find this a pity, because even from a purely
> technical point of view, it is always better to have some alternatives. And there are
> things which you can do with mod_jk, which you cannot with mod_proxy_ajp and/or
> mod_proxy_http (and probably vice-versa).
>
> Anyway, I wonder if anyone here has another opinion on the matter.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
Re: RedHat and mod_jk
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
André,
On 7/15/2011 4:23 AM, André Warnier wrote:
> I would suppose that RedHat has good lawyers, and that they are
> "allowed" to do such a thing. Personally, I find this a bit
> "cheeky", specially from a company that presents itself as a champion
> of Open Source. It is not an unmitigated feeling, because on the
> other hand I also recognise that mod_jk is a complex piece of
> software, and that supporting it for customers certainly has a cost.
Yes, it does cost money. Odd that they have httpd packages available but
not the mod_jk package. As we've said many times on this list, it's
trivial to build. Package managers can easily support it. Debian does
it, why not Red Hat?
> In the practice thus, it probably means that a number of people will
> no longer use mod_jk on RHEL systems in the future, and I find this a
> pity, because even from a purely technical point of view, it is
> always better to have some alternatives.
It's just not feasible for Apache to supply binaries for every
environment. Apache cannot force RHEL to provide a package.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk4gmbkACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PB5tgCgjGeDXQ5l9sxLQQ7Bru7bpTuc
N1kAnAxUFN8z/mLTAYh2TPH6yGMZIuQ6
=HyIf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org