On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 9:03 AM, David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> My understanding of 'what we talk about' is what to do with mod_jk - >> deprecate/remove old code, add few features >> to better match current tomcat ( and current requirements - larger >> clusters, >> etc ). It seems there is some agreement that >> current AJP protocol won't work, but bigger disagreement on weather to >> just >> do nothing at all ( i.e. just maintain current >> code ), or do some small addition to AJP, use HTTP, etc. >> >> > I got the impression that majority of people here > wish to maintain the mod_jk. Rainer wishes to add few > things in new 1.3 branch which is fine with me. > > The rest like Jean-Frederic said 'Won't happen' > which I read, there is no man power here that > would do something new. > I agree there is no man power to implement a new protocol. But if we just use one - openwire or something similar - it may be much easier. Adding the dependency and getting it to build should be few hours/days, then adding various handlers can be done very incrementally. If I read correctly Rainer's list, some improvements will be easier if he had a better/more extensible communication mechanism, load balancing in particular. I don't have a lot of time - certainly not for a new connector/branch/etc, but I and others may find few hours if it would be easier - and I think a more extensible communication would do that. Changing existing code - without breaking backward compat - is pretty hard. > > I would love to make 'something new', but it > obviously won't happen under Tomcat umbrella. Why not ? It seems well in scope. Costin > > > > Regards > -- > ^(TM) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
