> > > > I have been following the AJP enhancements for a long time and it seems > the > > protocol is stagnant. > > I prefer 'mature'. >
Apologies. Mature is a much more appropriate word. > > I do see some updates in the last year to the > > enhancements page and some of the bugs, but there is not much activity. > I > > search for "enhancements" under the Tomcat Connectors project in Bugzilla > > because it does not seem as though there is a specific category for AJP > > Protocol enhancements. I am very interested in starting work on the AJP > > Protocol enhancements. It seems like the protocol needs a clear > > specification. > > We have this: > http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/ajp/ajpv13a.html > > I'd like to see that in more of an RFC style but the content (speaking > as someone who spends a lot of time reading and then implementing specs) > is pretty good. > I have reviewed the page you mentioned, in detail. I was confused however, because of the other page with ideas for the protocol enhancements. I see where you cleared that up below. Maybe we need to state that the "ajpv13a" page (or a new page) is the definitive resource for the new protocol declaration. > > > Wouldn't a JSR for the protocol specification make sense? Aren't there > > enough people on this list with a clear enough understanding to > facilitate > > introducing AJP 1.4 (or 2.0) as a JSR? > > -1. > > I don't believe that going via the JCP would add anything beneficial. > I am in agreement with this and Rainer's comments. I was suggesting JCP as a possibility, RFC style is perfectly O.K. as well. My goal is something formalized. An RFC for AJP1.3a or AJP1.4 or 2, whatever, would accomplish the same thing. > > Even if we don't go the JCP route, shouldn't we work on the protocol? It > > needs updating, imho. > > I do agree that there is benefit to updating the AJP protocol. Adding > support for HTTP upgrade is the feature that pops to mind immediately. I > also recall that we have used custom request attributes to pass > additional attributes that didn't have a dedicated protocol attribute. > > > If you think I am wrong, please explain why, so that I may learn from the > > experience. I have searched the lists and the interwebs for information > on > > this and I am having a hard time finding it. I have also been looking > for > > a place in the Tomcat project to dig in for 3 years, and I believe I have > > finally found that place. > > > > Some other facts to support my argument about generating a specification, > > it appears the enhancements to create the next AJP protocol are in > multiple > > locations. I know there is currently the AJP Extension Proposal, but > what > > about all of the AJP14 stuff floating around? > > > > https://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/ajp/ajpv13ext.html > > > https://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-connectors/jk2/v2.0.0/doc/common/AJPv14-proposal.html > > Those look to be largely the same ideas and date from roughly the same > time (10+ years ago). > Again, I agree, just think there should be a definitive definition of the protocol. > > > Please let me know your thoughts and concerns on enhancing the AJP > protocol > > and possibly introducing a new version with new features. > > I think there is a clear case for a new version. The first thing to do > would be to pull all the ideas together in one place (I'm thinking the > wiki), agree what needs to be in AJP.next and then work on updating the > specification to accommodate it. > > Regarding the wiki, the current Tomcat wiki is hosted on a system that > be be very slow (minutes) to process updates. I think we should create a > new wiki instance on the cwiki server that is a lot faster when editing. > Should gathering ideas in the wiki wait until after it is moved to a new instance, or will it all be migrated (so starting now on the new page would be ok?) -Andrew
