Mladen Turk wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
I don't have any preference either way, since we are pretty few
active folks at the moment, the less code is usually better
My plan was not to do that (org.apache.jk is not that huge) and keep
people happy.
Never
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
I don't have any preference either way, since we are pretty few active
folks at the moment, the less code is usually better
My plan was not to do that (org.apache.jk is not that huge) and keep
people happy.
Nevertheless, the Apache/IIS
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
I don't have any preference either way, since we are pretty few active
folks at the moment, the less code is usually better
My plan was not to do that (org.apache.jk is not that huge) and keep
people happy.
Rémy
I don't have any preference either way, since we are pretty few active
folks at the moment, the less code is usually better
Filip
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
Beyond the fact that org.apache.jk.* provides a generator for
the mod_jk.conf, is there any reason to have that connector
in parallel with
Hi,
Beyond the fact that org.apache.jk.* provides a generator for
the mod_jk.conf, is there any reason to have that connector
in parallel with org.apache.coyote.ajp.*
Regards,
Mladen.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
