Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 21353 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2004 10:27:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Jul 2004 10:27:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 82519 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jul 2004 10:26:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 82459 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jul 2004 10:26:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 82439 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jul 2004 10:26:55 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [66.18.69.32] (HELO mail02.infosat.net) (66.18.69.32) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 03:26:50 -0700 Received: from [66.18.80.117] (HELO sharp.fm) by mail02.infosat.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 93101293; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:26:27 +0200 Message-ID: <40FE44D3.5060500@sharp.fm> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:26:27 +0200 From: Graham Leggett User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Developers List CC: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Invitation to HTTPD commiters in tomcat-dev References: <20040721080018.905F349DC9@dns1.vodatel.hr> In-Reply-To: <20040721080018.905F349DC9@dns1.vodatel.hr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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. 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 --