Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 70847 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2009 21:33:05 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Feb 2009 21:33:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 51511 invoked by uid 500); 2 Feb 2009 21:32:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 51483 invoked by uid 500); 2 Feb 2009 21:32:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 51468 invoked by uid 99); 2 Feb 2009 21:32:53 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:32:53 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS,WEIRD_PORT X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rc46fi@googlemail.com designates 209.85.128.189 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.128.189] (HELO fk-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.128.189) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:32:43 +0000 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 26so1468378fkx.0 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:32:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jcjyod4p8Nn+KcoMTSg/ZA9vDG9Ru0ooCFT1vf6Ej6c=; b=H/QLoxea8j5kHpFl2vWZ+dgu9ouOIepMZtTa6F/CupGDoOKTxBq6d06jLtczOusFqu 90WPHZy0NpM+F4XQs+T4bYqTS78LsJPDZa0qRTtImG/Fk0tOl6d8BxMMvF35rl/o9xCy Tc5Fih9HPQXmcftcLIHqNHeTxAiCTMnZ3fRv8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=CGAN5imzhG9XdxuFM6Qw1pQcZATalJbikC+xeFFHLeWY6wFQ5Q14+sS/jpCgUuDLf6 bk5tXPh8vJ4EcsCv6Rhuvvm1usa7qGKWzn+KtU+sYrSCRVuT9yrjrUmzq7dolh1JKFzt PzKUTUY4fiCVx1PhEcKe894Ud60eCqFe77RlA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.181.145.7 with SMTP id x7mr463691bkn.159.1233610342700; Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:32:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <49875B39.1060008@boreham.org> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 22:32:22 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: AJP vs HTTP connectors? From: Gregor Schneider To: Tomcat Users List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org What I do now is that mod_proxy is not all that easy to configure and offers quite some possibilities to open a leak if you don't know exactly what you're doing. Besides, I'm not aware that mod_proxy offers any loadbalancing features, but maybe I'm missing something here. And, last not least: Rainer Jung, one of the maintainers (the maintainer?) of mod_jk is within this list is gives a superb support, and updates to mod_jk are deployed on a very frequent basis. Therefore, for me no reason at all to change a running system. A new system I've setup recently now runs completely without Apache HTTPD, therefore using the APR, so no need for either one of mod_proxy or mod_jk (ok: we've got a hardware-loadbalancer ;) ) Rgds Gregor -- just because your paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you... gpgp-fp: 79A84FA526807026795E4209D3B3FE028B3170B2 gpgp-key available @ http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de:11371 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org