tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thom Park <tp...@borland.com>
Subject RE: Is anyone working on iPlanet integration?
Date Wed, 08 Aug 2001 16:35:09 GMT
hi,

>From my point of view, mod_webapp is much cleaner and easier to extend.

I was able to implement an IIOP based provider for mod_webapp in a few weeks
whilst I'm not even sure I could understand mod_jk in that time ;-).

In defense of mod_jk though, it has a lot of really nice goodies like
load-balancing
built in to it. It's also written in a very object-oriented fashion.
Unfortunately,
as it's written in C, that has introduced an unfortunate obfuscation
side-effect that
makes mod_jk difficult to understand.

mod_jk uses the AJP12 & AJP13 protocols, mod_webapp uses a new WARP
protocolm which offers
some nifty 'deployment' tricks that allows the apache side to tell the
tomcat side what sort
of context to maintain. the idea is that you only have to configure the
context in one file
(the apache httpd.conf) instead of both the apache and the tomcat config
files.

Nice if you absolutely must use manage both tomcat & apache.

mod_jk has the ability to allow apache to serve the static content and have
tomcat serve the
dynamic (servlet & jsp) content. - it uses a pattern matching trick to
determine which request
get's punted to tomcat.

mod_webapp, currently, though when Pier get's time to breath this will
change), punts all the requests
for a given application to tomcat, both static and dynamic.

As I said before, I found mod_webapp easier to extend than mod_jk, and,
ultimately, it is also a whole lot
easier to manage.

Which one you pick is really up to your needs. If you need loadbalancing,
want to split the dynamic and static
content, then go with mod_jk (and buy some asprin for the headache you'll
get trying to keep all those config
files in sync. - it's worth it but it is truly painful....), if you want a
simple, clean connector to
apache with minimum of admin fuss, then go with mod_webapp. If you're
looking to roll your own 'provider' then
definitely go with mod_webapp.

One other point, mod_jk has been around for quite a while and is probably
more stable, however, all bets are
probably off due to the impact of tomcat4's architectural differences.

-Thom


-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Wilson-Salt [mailto:colin@london.virgin.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 8:31 AM
To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: RE: Is anyone working on iPlanet integration?


What are the differences between mod_jk and mod_webapp?

I've looked at the code for mod_webapp but not mod_jk, though I have read
the documentation on configuring Apache / iPlanet to use Tomcat 3, which I
believe is based on the mod_jk stuff.

What are the differences between the protocols used between the web server
and the servlet container? Is one more efficient / less resource intensive?

In terms of future development, is one going to be easier / more likely to
get features like load balancing between multiple web servers and multiple
servlet engines?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pier P. Fumagalli [mailto:pier@betaversion.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 16:13
> To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Is anyone working on iPlanet integration?
>
>
> jean-frederic clere at jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com wrote:
>
> > Colin Wilson-Salt wrote:
> >>
> >> I hope this is an appropriate place to ask this question -
> I've just joined
> >> this list because I've not been able to find the answer or
> a better place to
> >> ask it.
> >>
> >> Is anybody working on an iPlanet / NSAPI equivalent of the
> mod_webapp / warp
> >> connector stuff?
> >
> > mod_jk. - Have a look to jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk -
>
> Stealing customers, uh??? :)
>
>     Pier
>


Mime
View raw message