Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 34693 invoked by uid 500); 2 May 2001 15:48:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 34533 invoked from network); 2 May 2001 15:48:05 -0000 Received: from interpage.net (204.75.164.1) by h31.sny.collab.net with SMTP; 2 May 2001 15:48:05 -0000 Received: IP1 from dfieldsvaio.interpage.net by interpage.net with esmtp id m14uyr9-001BY9C; Wed, 2 May 2001 11:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010502114631.038bfc90@localhost> X-Sender: fields@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 11:47:51 -0400 To: tomcat-user@jakarta.apache.org From: Doug Fields Subject: RE: Why Use apache In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N >tomcat isn't as good as apache at serving static html files and images. >also, with apache up and running you can do other stuff like execute cgi >scripts and so on. That said, I use it as a standalone web and servlet server. The primary drawback then becomes: It does NOT keep logs like a "real" webserver. There is nothing to show traffic or which is amenable to analysis. So, for a small site which doesn't care about logs, it's great and a lot easier to install, configure, and maintain than in combination with Apache. Doug