On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 7:09 PM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 27/06/18 17:50, Rainer Jung wrote:
> > Since encryption would be most of the most useful features and IMHO we
> > won't get there, I suggest we discuss deprecation and EOL dates for AJP
> > - meaning mod_jk and AJP connectors.
>
> +1
>
> > There's no need to rush, but there could be a clear statement, that no
> > feature improvements will be done and users should plan for moving to
> > mod_proxy_http (or other http/https) clients.
> >
> > I think it would be better to invest time in improving mod_proxy where
> > it still might lack. For instance adding custom headers to transport
> > communication info from the proxy to the backend like AJP does and which
> > could be noticed by our Tomcat http connectors and/or support for the
> > PROXY protocol.
>
> +1
>
> > So what do people think about:
> >
> > 1) adding a statement to the mod_jk docs, that we don't plan any feature
> > enhancements and suggest users to migrate to mod_proxy_http and the TC
> > HTTP connectors (but what about IIS? I think there are reverse proxy
> > modules there as well?)
>
> I believe there is, but we should investigate it a little first to see
> what the feature set is. I have a full set of current Windows OSes plus
> IIS VMs. I'm happy to look into this aspect.
>
> > 2) Adding a similar statement to the connector docs for AJP to TC 7-9.
>
> +1, with the above caveat.
>
> > 3) Deprecating AJP in TC 9 and removing in TC 10
>
> That was sooner than I was expecting. I guess it comes down to what the
> timescale is for Tomcat 10 and that depends on Jakarta EE. I think I'd
> like to wait until we have a clearer picture of the Jakarta EE roadmap
> before deciding. If Tomcat 10 was far enough in the future (and assuming
> IIS has a reasonable set of features) then I'd be OK with that.
>
> How far is "far enough" and what "reasonable" means I'm still thinking
> about ;)
>

+1 for everything, it doesn't seem significant enhancements will happen so
this makes perfect sense.

Rémy

Reply via email to