tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>
Subject Re: Current Connector Development
Date Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:20:04 GMT
G√ľnter Knauf wrote:

>Hi Mladen,
>appologies that I couldnt closely follow the connector development in the past year, so
I'm somewhat suprised about all the recent directions....; and cant really understand them;
so I would greatly appreciate if you could do a summarize why you are currently again developing
to mod_jk...
>
>well, what I see is this:
>after more than one year stagnation on the mod_jk2 connector we started again, made it
comilable on all platforms, and improved it a lot, cleaned up the code cause we made APR mandatory,
and did a release. Many users where happy with it, and a lot of new users came and saw 'hey,
thats the new connector' and tried it; others migrated and found mod_jk2 faster over mod_jk.
>
>Few time later you are not lucky with mod_jk2, and you just want to start another conenctor;
and after some discussion you agreed to create mod_proy_ajp.
>
>Then suddenly, just after mod_proy_ajp is just born - and I cant believe that it is only
cause I couldnt follow up with development - I see that you state that mod_jk2 has come to
its end cause of no developers and no users interest....
>
>really suprised of this all I get mail from Novell asking for help since mod_jk is now
broken.....
>we have just fixed it so we could folow up with the 1.2.8 release, and you continue to
break it ......
>
>If I recall correctly we commonly agreed with last time's discussion that we stay with
mod_jk _as_is_ and dont move to APR or such, and that mod_jk should mainly remain for our
Apache 1.3.x users while Apache 2.x users should use mod_jk2 or also now mod_proxy_ajp - so
what has changed this direction now??
>
>Mladen, if you continue with the mod_jk development I fear that we end up the same as
with mod_jk2: you will certainly break Apache 1.3.x support - at least on NetWare, and that's
_very_ bad cause it's a shipping product of NetWare 6.
>  
>
I don't see mod_jk ending up the same as mod_jk2 in that:
  1) The configuration is relatively sane as compared to that of mod_jk2
  2) There are many reasonably stable mod_jk versions, so even *if* 
Mladen screws up a release there are plenty of alternative mod_jk versions.
        * On the other hand, there never really was a stable mod_jk2 
release -- every release tested continued to exhibit serious corner case 
issues.

It would be great if everyone could move to mod_proxy_ajp, but I believe 
that still requires Apache 2.1/2.2 -- which means it has not yet arrived 
for the majority of us.

I personally applaud Mladen for his efforts to fix/improve/maintain 
mod_jk given that that is the reality for most of us.

--
Jess Holle

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message