You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by Raj Subramani <ra...@clarologic.com> on 2001/04/18 14:58:19 UTC
mod_jk - DEAD END! [POSTSCRIPT]
Well folks it finally "appears" to work (after endless struggles and
news group and e-mail list browsing).
Me thinks, there is absolutely no point in downloading the mod_jk.so
binaries for LINUX (mod_jk.dll works a treat on NT first time every time).
Build it!
Here's until next time.
Cheers
-raj
Re: mod_jk - DEAD END! [POSTSCRIPT]
Posted by Sam Newman <sa...@stamplets.com>.
Whilst the mod_jk worked for me, I aggree that it could be more clearly
marked as to what platforms its currently supported on. As the the number
one issue raised on the list, over the last week or so it seems to be people
either not reading or getting confused by the howto docs
sam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Kilbride" <je...@kilbride.com>
To: <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: mod_jk - DEAD END! [POSTSCRIPT]
> Forgive the expression, but bullshit. :)
>
> The mod_jk compilation *is* trivial and since they don't list on the
website
> what version of Apache or Linux the binary is compiled for, it's pretty
much
> useless. I'd say the number one problem post I have seen since joining
this
> list relates to the fact that the binary doesn't work on most people's
> systems. If you give somebody with relatively little experience a binary
> that's supposed to work and it doesn't, it only confuses the matter that
> much more.
>
> By the way, I'd be interested in hearing what your config is, since it
> worked for you.
>
> Thanks,
> --jeff
>
Re: mod_jk - DEAD END! [POSTSCRIPT]
Posted by Jeff Kilbride <je...@kilbride.com>.
That's funny, because I was running RH6.2 with Apache 1.3.19 from source.
All I did was go to the directory where I installed the Jakarta sources and
then to src/native/apache1.3/. I copied Makefile.linux to Makefile, and then
typed "make" from the command prompt. About 2 minutes later, I had my own
compiled version of mod_jk.so. I didn't have to enter any apxs commands
manually, the Makefile took care of it for me.
Thanks,
--jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rui M . Silva Seabra" <rm...@multicert.com>
To: <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: mod_jk - DEAD END! [POSTSCRIPT]
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:25:23AM -0700, Jeff Kilbride wrote:
> > Forgive the expression, but bullshit. :)
> > The mod_jk compilation *is* trivial and since they don't list on the
website
>
> In the web page:
>
> For Linux:
> apxs -o
mod_jk.so -I../jk -I/usr/local/jdk/include -I/usr/local/jdk/include/linux -c
*.c ../jk/*.c
>
> Your build may fail because the object files from the ../jk directory have
been compiled to the current directory, rather than their source directory.
>
> Running gcc -shared -o mod_jk.so *.o should finish the build.
>
> Now, this did not work with my system, a RH 6.2 with apache installed from
source.
>
> Yes, with DSO enabled.
>
> The exact error is far away from my mind. I don't care anymore :)
>
>
> > what version of Apache or Linux the binary is compiled for, it's pretty
much
> > useless. I'd say the number one problem post I have seen since joining
this
>
> It worked perfectly in RH 6.2 and RH 7.0. I'm willing to bet that it will
work on many more.
>
> > list relates to the fact that the binary doesn't work on most people's
> > systems. If you give somebody with relatively little experience a binary
> > that's supposed to work and it doesn't, it only confuses the matter that
> > much more.
>
> No.. usually binaries are not a good solution.
>
> > By the way, I'd be interested in hearing what your config is, since it
> > worked for you.
>
> I don't think the hardware would be an issue, then:
>
> RH 6.2 (with official upgrades), apache 1.3.14 initially, but it has
worked ever since.
>
> There's nothing more to it! :)
>
> hugs, rms
>
> --
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Ghandi
> + So let's do it...?
>
Re: mod_jk - DEAD END! [POSTSCRIPT]
Posted by "Rui M . Silva Seabra" <rm...@multicert.com>.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:25:23AM -0700, Jeff Kilbride wrote:
> Forgive the expression, but bullshit. :)
> The mod_jk compilation *is* trivial and since they don't list on the website
In the web page:
For Linux:
apxs -o mod_jk.so -I../jk -I/usr/local/jdk/include -I/usr/local/jdk/include/linux -c *.c ../jk/*.c
Your build may fail because the object files from the ../jk directory have been compiled to the current directory, rather than their source directory.
Running gcc -shared -o mod_jk.so *.o should finish the build.
Now, this did not work with my system, a RH 6.2 with apache installed from source.
Yes, with DSO enabled.
The exact error is far away from my mind. I don't care anymore :)
> what version of Apache or Linux the binary is compiled for, it's pretty much
> useless. I'd say the number one problem post I have seen since joining this
It worked perfectly in RH 6.2 and RH 7.0. I'm willing to bet that it will work on many more.
> list relates to the fact that the binary doesn't work on most people's
> systems. If you give somebody with relatively little experience a binary
> that's supposed to work and it doesn't, it only confuses the matter that
> much more.
No.. usually binaries are not a good solution.
> By the way, I'd be interested in hearing what your config is, since it
> worked for you.
I don't think the hardware would be an issue, then:
RH 6.2 (with official upgrades), apache 1.3.14 initially, but it has worked ever since.
There's nothing more to it! :)
hugs, rms
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Ghandi
+ So let's do it...?
Re: mod_jk - DEAD END! [POSTSCRIPT]
Posted by Jeff Kilbride <je...@kilbride.com>.
Forgive the expression, but bullshit. :)
The mod_jk compilation *is* trivial and since they don't list on the website
what version of Apache or Linux the binary is compiled for, it's pretty much
useless. I'd say the number one problem post I have seen since joining this
list relates to the fact that the binary doesn't work on most people's
systems. If you give somebody with relatively little experience a binary
that's supposed to work and it doesn't, it only confuses the matter that
much more.
By the way, I'd be interested in hearing what your config is, since it
worked for you.
Thanks,
--jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rui M . Silva Seabra" <rm...@multicert.com>
To: <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: mod_jk - DEAD END! [POSTSCRIPT]
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 01:58:19PM +0100, Raj Subramani wrote:
> > Well folks it finally "appears" to work (after endless struggles and
> > news group and e-mail list browsing).
> >
> > Me thinks, there is absolutely no point in downloading the mod_jk.so
> > binaries for LINUX (mod_jk.dll works a treat on NT first time every
time).
> >
> > Build it!
>
> Bullshit. :)
>
> Forgive the expression, but it worked very well with me. Of course, if you
don't have similar enough a system with the one in which mod_jk.so was
compiled, it will not work.
>
> Since windows is one platform with the same libraries, it's almost
deterministic the mod_jk.dll will work.
>
> There is a point in downloading. If it workds, fine, if it doesn't,
compile it.
>
>
> I've had problems because mod_jk.so's compilation is non trivial. The
compiled one worked perfectly.
>
> Hugs, rms
>
> --
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Ghandi
> + So let's do it...?
>
Re: mod_jk - DEAD END! [POSTSCRIPT]
Posted by "Rui M . Silva Seabra" <rm...@multicert.com>.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 01:58:19PM +0100, Raj Subramani wrote:
> Well folks it finally "appears" to work (after endless struggles and
> news group and e-mail list browsing).
>
> Me thinks, there is absolutely no point in downloading the mod_jk.so
> binaries for LINUX (mod_jk.dll works a treat on NT first time every time).
>
> Build it!
Bullshit. :)
Forgive the expression, but it worked very well with me. Of course, if you don't have similar enough a system with the one in which mod_jk.so was compiled, it will not work.
Since windows is one platform with the same libraries, it's almost deterministic the mod_jk.dll will work.
There is a point in downloading. If it workds, fine, if it doesn't, compile it.
I've had problems because mod_jk.so's compilation is non trivial. The compiled one worked perfectly.
Hugs, rms
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Ghandi
+ So let's do it...?