Remy Maucherat wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
Hi,
Does it make sense we register the AJP port to IANA?
No.
It has numerous limitations that makes it almost
unusable in anything but webserver->servlet-engine
communication. And even that is limited by the
8K message. We should persuade a next generation
binary http protocol instead giving more dependency
on the already limited one.
-1. If you're going to redesign a brand new protocol to get around the
"limitations" of AJP (which actually make it superior to HTTP), then
HTTP should be used instead. To summarize, I don't see the point of a
"next gen" binary HTTP protocol (BTW, I don't have any idea how you
can call functionality like that "next gen" ;) ).
A small patch to the protocol to work around the 8K limitation should
be possible. I don't see the problem with proposing it to IANA as
Jean-Frédéric suggested even if there's no protocol patch: AJP is very
widely used, and will continue to be used even if the limitation remains.
What I want to do is just to register port 8009 for AJP protocol. Not to
register the whole protocol ;-)
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
