tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From felix <>
Subject Re: ATTN: TC users, reply requested
Date Sun, 11 Nov 2001 01:40:08 GMT

> From: "Martin van den Bemt" <>

>> I can setup a website with fully executable downloadable versions of the
>> Tomcat compiler for any number of the OS platforms (Win95 / 98, Win2k,
>> Linux, Unix, NT4.0 etc...) where TC is used. The website would
>> also include
>> installation instructions for TC use on the various OS platforms and the
>> donors contact information such as:
>> "This program was donated to this site by:"
> I don't think the problem is there for getting a compiled release ;)) You
> can downlaod that already and is working perfectly if you read the
> installation document.

No it doesn't.  As i posted recently, the workers file for the linux binary
distribution is set up for NT
even without apache running, tomcat failed to start as a standalone.
i tried for a while, and then just got on with stage two, getting it to work
with apache. no point whatsoever in solving twice the problem.

> Is exactly the same as the windows version, the vms version ,etc,etc... I
> thought that was the purpose of java in the first place ;))

business people are supposed to believe this.
programmers are supposed to know that that is a limited claim at best.
perl and php are also completely portable...
so is squeak, many kinds of smalltalk.
so what does java defeat ?   different separaters : / \ ?

java is portable...until you get to the real issues like connecting to the
rest of the machine.
anyone who runs a mac knows java isn't portable at all.
anyone who has tried audio knows it isn't true.

it doesn't even run on more than one browser (applets).
it doesn't even run on that browser if you're not on m$

> The problem is in connecting tomcat to webservers..  And if you want
> binaries for ALL possible combinations, it's best to have a package which
> also includes the webserver (which for apache+tomcat is already there
> somewhere I believe).

no it isn't, and considering jserv is supposed to be depreciated, why does
every one of us have to jump through a badly documented conflicting hoop to
remove the damn thing, get mod_jk, compile that and then figure out how this
maze of configs is supposed to work so that we can remove it ?

why is tomcat-apache.conf auto generated ?
where does it say it is ?
what config are  we supposed to use ?
anybody that knows the answers to this has moved on to 4 which means that
the recommended stable version of tomcat has no support.

why did we have to waste this much time removing a 2 year old depreciated
connector ?

at least lets get a working apache-tomcat distribution for a couple of major

> If documentation doesn't seem to cover EVERYTHING
> needed, then the documentation should be updated,

actually i'm more concerned that so much of the documentation covers things
that aren't needed, are temporary, or are depreciated.
it makes it much longer, much harder to find what is correct, and much more
error prone (witness that the 3.2.3 documentation has been accidentally
overwritten with 3.3 docs so that there is no longer any info about auto
generated configs).

too many configurations of configurations, too many possible ways to skin
too many cats.

> but that has to come from
> the people who are actually faced those problems, so it can be added in
> those documents (you cannot get any valuable input from me, if everything
> works fine...)

unfortunately what happens to most of us is that we eventually get it
working, and can barely figure out what we changed to get that.  or what the
original set up was.
every single step by step tutorial i went through failed to get me up and
running in the end.

> A big problem solver is actually that people read the documents supplied
> (something we don't like to do though, or at least most of the time we just
> skim through it briefly, in which case you miss some important notes).

> So in short :
> Do what you think is necessary, but I tend to think this is only adding
> confusion instead of solving it..
> Mvgr,
> Martin
> --
> To unsubscribe:   <>
> For additional commands: <>
> Troubles with the list: <>

To unsubscribe:   <>
For additional commands: <>
Troubles with the list: <>

View raw message