Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
From: shachor@il.ibm.com
To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
cc: jluc@ma-planete.net
Message-ID: <C1256879.003C5727.00@d12mta02.de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:58:58 +0200
Subject: Re: Discussion: AJP next
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline


>
> 1 - integrating a JVM in an Apache module is a _bad thing_ (tm) IMO.
>     . from the architecture point of view. (n-tier is better for
> scalability than monolithic servers)
>     . from the security point of view (small pieces of code means less
> bugs, user permissions problems)
>     . from the portability point of view (example: Apache runs very well
> on BSDs. JVMs don't).
>

You are correct, integrating a JVM into apache (or any other web server) is not
good. However, on NT there are performance improvements when working in-process
and if you want to create the biggest bang this is the way to go.

I agree that a JNI only solution is bad (does not scale/not as stable ...) but
we should
try to make it possible.

>
> 4 - sockets cannot be easily shared between httpd processes (on Unix at
> least, and with Apache 1.x).
>
Neither on NT.

>
> 5 - Using any other protocol than ajpv11 is faster.
>     . yes but ajpv11 brings everything needed. So keep the "verbose"
> protocol a possible choice.(for ben-ssl/mod_ssl by example).
>
We are not saying that we want to kill ajp12, only that we want to add something
new.

>
> 7 - All of this has to pass firewalls (callbacks ?)
>
On the same socket.


     Gal Shachor

-------------------------------
Gal Shachor
IBM Research, Haifa Lab.
Email: shachor@il.ibm.com
Notes: Gal Shachor/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
Phone: +972-4-8296164
Fax: +972-4-8550070
Address: IBM Haifa Research Lab, Matam, Haifa 31905, Israel