> If you look at my message, my favourite is *not* a JK3. I'm in favor of jk > 1.3. The difference for me is that 1.3 will be very close to 1.2 without any > bug architectural changes like migrating to APR.
ok. > I added some examples of new features in my original mesage. You can find > more examples in our TODO file, e.g. > > http://svn.eu.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/connectors/trunk/jk/native/TODO.txt?revision=757083 Thanks > Why not moving into mod_proxy? If httpd were approaching a major version > change (e.g. httpd 3.0), then there would be the freedom of doing big > changes to mod_proxy. But httpd is moving towards 2.4. That means the > architecture of mod_proxy will not change. But mod_proxy as it is today > doesn't have a clear separation of proxy, balancing and ajp, despite the > various module names. Nope, I suggested moving the actual mod_jk to httpd or may be a pure APR version of jk (without the #define #ifdef ...) > So (and now I am talking about me personally) I think I can still add > interesting features to a mod_jk 1.3 with not to much effort, whereas the > barrior of porting existing mod_jk features to mod_proxy before adding the > new stuff is pretty high for me alone. No problem but you should find more friends to works on it, mod_warp and jk2 disapears too quickly since they have too few supporters ,) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
