tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: Configuring mod_jk2
Date Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:32:45 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Simon Stewart wrote:

> Will do. The most obvious thing that springs to mind is that the
> config files don't look anything like the declarative xml that is used
> when configuring other enterprise java components (I'm thinking of
> web.xml, ejb-jar.xml, etc) or the pseudo-xml of httpd.conf. Since an
> XML parser is included "for free" with JDK1.4, and tomcat can
> obviously parse XML even without this (web.xml again) how hard would
> it be to implement?

Not hard, and it could be done on the C side as well ( via expat ).
Patches wellcomed :-)

What I want to enforce is the 'plugability' of the config data
repository, and make sure the code will work with simpler 
mecanisms like properties file ( i.e. we're not dependent
on XML ).

I believe it's important for scalability ( i.e. 100s of tomcats
in a farm ) to be able to use a directory service ( like LDAP,
NDS, active directory ) for configuration. 

And I believe it's important for integration of tomcat into another 
application or system to be able to adapt to that application's config
mechanism. That may mean registry ( via JDK1.4 prefs or jk2 native
code in <JDK1.3) or even JMX-persistence implementations or 
whatever an app is using. 

And is usefull for small footprint profiles - i.e. J2ME-class.

> The format of the workers2.ini file is even more perplexing: it
> doesn't look anything like a "normal" java properties file; more like
> a windows INI file than anything else. It just doesn't "chime" with
> the experience of your average admin or java developer, ime.

Actually supports 'normal' properties syntax.


is the same as 

The 'ini' syntax is IMHO easier to type and read - and is used
in quite a few applications ( windows, but also gnome, kde, etc ).
And is very close to a directory-service view and model.

> > My goal was (is) to eventually support a preferences-like
> > configuration, with multiple backends ( including directory services
> > and win32 registry ).
> It sounds like an interesting thing to do, but won't this hamper
> portability? It's nice to be able to take the and
> and put them in the right place on any platform.

I think the .properties are the baseline - they should work 
on any platform or server.

Portability doesn't mean an app can't be integrated or shouldn't
be able to take advantage of special features ( like an LDAP server
or registry, or doors, unix sockets, etc ).

As an example - it is possible to configure mod_jk2 using only 
httpd.conf. This is a bit faster ( but scales much better 
for large number of vhosts/mappings ). This is done
using "JkSet name value" ( instead of name=value in the properties
format ) and "JkUriSet name value" inside <Location>.
A similar thing can be done with IIS for example ( where the 'natural'
config is in registry ). Nacho already implemented a win32 
logger ( again, the 'natural' thing for this case ).


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message