httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jean-frederic clere <>
Subject Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev
Date Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:34:56 GMT
Graham Leggett wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
>> I don't think that it is necessary for a mod_ajp to be included inside 
>> the
>> mod_proxy, although they are sharing some common concepts.
> I think it's very necessary - sharing those common concepts ultimately 
> makes for doing things in a consistent way. It makes a big difference to 
> the usability of httpd.
> Right now proxy is able to talk HTTP and FTP (and CONNECT, but it's a 
> special case). It makes the most sense for AJP to be added to these 
> three protocols, as there is already an established way to do this.
> Consistency is very important.
>> Having load
>> balancer on top of mod_proxy would be a nice feature, but the main 
>> purpose
>> for them is different.
> Different to what? Load balancing is load balancing, whether the backend 
> protocol is HTTP, AJP or FTP.
> I see no point on making significant effort in a feature that can only 
> be used for one protocol, that's a huge waste of an opportunity to solve 
> the load balancing problems of backends other than tomcat.
>> The purpose of mod_ajp is to communicate with the (one or more of them 
>> in a
>> cluster) application servers using ajp13+ protocol; simple as that. Proxy
>> module has a conceptually different approach, and it is meant to be 
>> used for
>> different purposes.
> I rewrote proxy, so I know - proxy has the exact same conceptual 
> approach and is used for the exact same purposes. Proxy allows you to 
> communicate with (one or more in a cluster) applications servers using 
> HTTP or FTP. The only difference is the protocol.

I see in ap_proxy_http_handler() that DECLINED allows to try another. Is there 
somewhere an example of a configuration using it?

> The development of proxy_ajp could see the development of modules like 
> proxy_loadbalance or proxy_sticky, which have general application 
> outside of the AJP protocol.
> Just rewriting mod_ajp for v2.0 isn't anything different to what exists 
> now, so I don't see the point.
> Regards,
> Graham
> -- 

View raw message