tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Gomez <henri.go...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Remove older of the two BIO AJP connectors
Date Mon, 06 Apr 2009 07:17:07 GMT
Very interesting thread.

What's the needs in server / tc communications ?

- new apis
- new communication layer

ajp is a not so bad protocol but the jk impl mix comm & marsh/unmarsh  
& api.

we could find a persistant communication layer (openwire from  
activemq ?)

we could define a set of apis (getLoad, forwardRequest)

Then we should be able to glue both to a servlet engine like tomcat.

Could we assemble existing components and attract external people ? I  
hope so, that was the idea behind my original post on this thread.

I'm pretty sure we could collects ideas and needs here and after have  
a general idea of what should be done, how and where.

Incubator is a good idea, so it won't just be (seen) as a new tomcat  
sub project or a nth attempt to rewrite mod_jk.

Also it could be used by other servlet engines, more brains, more ideas.

Openess is the key.







Le 4 avr. 09 à 19:15, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> a écrit :

> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Mladen Turk <mturk@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Costin Manolache wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 9:03 AM, David Jencks  
>>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> My understanding of 'what we talk about' is what to do with mod_jk -
>>> deprecate/remove old code, add few features
>>> to better match current tomcat ( and current requirements - larger
>>> clusters,
>>> etc ). It seems there is some agreement that
>>> current AJP protocol won't work, but bigger disagreement on  
>>> weather to
>>> just
>>> do nothing at all ( i.e. just maintain current
>>> code ), or do some small addition to AJP, use HTTP, etc.
>>>
>>>
>> I got the impression that majority of people here
>> wish to maintain the mod_jk. Rainer wishes to add few
>> things in new 1.3 branch which is fine with me.
>>
>> The rest like Jean-Frederic said 'Won't happen'
>> which I read, there is no man power here that
>> would do something new.
>>
>
> I agree there is no man power to implement a new protocol.
> But if we just use one - openwire or something similar - it may be
> much easier.
>
> Adding the dependency and getting it to build should be few hours/ 
> days,
> then adding various handlers can be done very incrementally.
>
> If I read correctly Rainer's list, some improvements will be easier  
> if he
> had a better/more extensible communication mechanism, load balancing  
> in
> particular.
>
> I don't have a lot of time - certainly not for a new connector/ 
> branch/etc,
> but
> I and others may find few hours if it would be easier -
> and I think a more extensible communication would do that. Changing  
> existing
> code - without breaking backward compat - is pretty hard.
>
>
>>
>> I would love to make 'something new', but it
>> obviously won't happen under Tomcat umbrella.
>
>
> Why not ? It seems well in scope.
>
> Costin
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> ^(TM)
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>
>>

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


Mime
View raw message