On 24.03.2009 15:40, Remy Maucherat wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 15:24 +0100, Rainer Jung wrote:
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.
Cool, some exotic features bound for mod_proxy.
I though I wrote about not porting to mod_proxy. So I don't understand
that answer.
I hope most get vetoed ...
I don't understand that as well. The proposal is to branch in order to
keep 1.2 very stable. So what sense does a veto make?
The main feature you should have provided with mod_jk, which is quality
of service, have somehow been carefully avoided for years. That's now
finally being addressed by mod_cluster.
Unfortunately I don't really understand, what your proposal is? Are you
suggesting to let mod_jk die?
Regards,
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
