jkjni.so and in-process - does it work Tomcat 5.0.19 and Apache 2.0.49

Good afternoon.

I've spent this morning trying to get Tomcat 5.0.19 and Apache 2.0.49
working together using an in-process worker (using jni). This is my second
attempt. A couple of weeks ago someone said that Tomcat 5x and Apache 2x
weren't yet working together.

Am I again trying to accomplish the impossible? And specificly, if it is
possible, were can I find jkjni.so (I've downloaded mod_jk2.so from the
Apache site.)

Thanks,
Ron.

Ron Brennan <rbrennan@magma.ca> wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago someone said that Tomcat 5x and Apache 2x
> weren't yet working together.

I've Apache 1.3.x and Tomcat 5 working togheter, so I think that Apache 2
and Tomcat should work as well, especially considering that the mod_jk2
has been designed with Apache 2 in mind.

> possible, were can I find jkjni.so

AFAIK there ain't a precompiled one, you have to compile it yourself, not
terribly complicated but a little time-consuming.

Davide

--
| Larkinson's Law: All laws are basically false.
|
|
|

"Davide Bianchi" <davideyeahsure@onlyforfun.net> wrote in message
news:c5rugj$5a1ru$3@ID-18487.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Ron Brennan <rbrennan@magma.ca> wrote:
> > A couple of weeks ago someone said that Tomcat 5x and Apache 2x
> > weren't yet working together.
>
> I've Apache 1.3.x and Tomcat 5 working togheter, so I think that Apache 2
> and Tomcat should work as well, especially considering that the mod_jk2
> has been designed with Apache 2 in mind.
>
> > possible, were can I find jkjni.so
>
> AFAIK there ain't a precompiled one, you have to compile it yourself, not
> terribly complicated but a little time-consuming.
>
> Davide
>
> --
> | Larkinson's Law: All laws are basically false.
> |
> |
> |
1) This is on Windows 2000 Pro, so therefore I don't have a compiler. It is
helpful to know though that what I'm looking for doesn't exist. Moot point
though, I think:
2) I found on the Apache site a statement saying that jni isn't stable
enough for production, which I need it to be. I don't know if this statement
is still current but until I hear otherwise I'll have to assume it is.

Ron Brennan <rbrennan@magma.ca> wrote:
> 1) This is on Windows 2000 Pro, so therefore I don't have a compiler.

Microsoft do sell one, so does other companies. Do you want windows?
Pay his prices.

Davide

--
| Paradise is exactly like where you are right now ... only much, much
| better.
|
|