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
>
>