geronimo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Bradley <ma...@tera.teralink.com>
Subject Re: Webapps exposed on distinct ports
Date Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:16:54 GMT
Hi David,

Yes, I can give a specific example.

I have two tomcat connectors available in Geronimo (1.1.1):

   1) TomcatWebConnector (port 8080)
   2) Tomcat2 (port 8081)

My application.xml currently looks like this:

<application
        xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee"
        xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
        xsi:schemaLocation="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee
        http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee/application_1_4.xsd"
        version="1.4">
     <module>
         <web>
             <web-uri>app.war</web-uri>
             <context-root>/app</context-root>
         </web>
     </module>
     <module>
         <connector>ge-activemq-rar-1.1.1.rar</connector>
     </module>
</application>

I want to deploy this so that the application is available on the  
tomcat connector I defined on port 8081 (named Tomcat2).  The wiki  
shows a 'web-app' section under the 'module' element, but it doesn't  
seem to be valid (parse errors if I try to use it).  When I deploy it  
the way it is now, my application becomes available on both ports,  
whereas I only want it available on one of the connectors (and the  
specific one I specify somewhere!).

Any help is greatly appreciated, and thanks for looking at this!

-Mark

On Oct 12, 2006, at 1:54 PM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> On Oct 12, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Mark Bradley wrote:
>
>> Greetings all,
>>
>> I am trying to figure out how to solve this exact same problem as  
>> described by Rick (below) where I need to deploy different apps to  
>> different tomcat connectors on different ports (already available).
>>
>> David says this capability became available in 1.1.   Does anyone  
>> know how to do this?
>
> the wiki page has an example and discussion, can you be specific  
> about what more you need?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Mark
>>
>> ------
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Rick Sears wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Hello everyone,
>>
>>     I've been trolling the web the past couple days looking for
>>     examples/information on how to accomplish something that is  
>> currently
>>     being done in an application we are looking at porting to run  
>> under
>>     Geronimo.  We would like to be able to expose one webapp on a  
>> non-ssl
>>     port, say 12345, while having another webapp also running in  
>> Geronimo
>>     running on a different ssl-enabled port, say 54321.  The webapp
>>     running on the ssl-enabled port should not be accessible from  
>> the non
>>     ssl-enabled port.
>>
>>     I've looked at a bunch of the Geronimo documentation, but all the
>>     things i've tried have come up short using Geronimo 1.0.   
>> There seems
>>     to be an example of doing something similar using Geronimo 1.1
>>
>>     (http://opensource.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/ 
>> GERONIMO/ Exposing+Web+Applications+on+distinct+ports),
>>
>>     but I am just wondering if i'm missing something that is also
>>     available on Geronimo 1.0.  The references to the <web-app>  
>> tag under
>>     the <module> tag are problematic in Geronimo 1.0, but I can't  
>> see any
>>     other way of tying a given deployed webapp to a particular Tomcat
>>     container (that is exposed on one set of ports but not the  
>> other).
>>
>>     If anyone has any examples/information on how to tie a  
>> deployed Tomcat
>>     webapp to a particular container with a distinct set of  
>> exposed ports,
>>     please let me know.
>>
>> This capability is new in 1.1. In 1.0, you might possibly be able  
>> to get something to work by using virtual hosts, but I'm not  
>> enough of an expert on that to give you good advice. In particular  
>> I don't know how reliable it would be.
>>
>> One other thing you might be able to use to prevent access from  
>> the non-ssl port is use j2ee web security to require the  
>> CONFIDENTIAL transport guarantee for the secured app. This  
>> probably wouldn't hide the existence of the secured app but would  
>> prevent access: I think you'd get a "forbidden" error rather than  
>> a "not found"
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message