Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jetty-dev] Unix Sockets for Jetty

Scott,

it is not a dumb question.

No this is not a substitute for AJP.  It is just an efficient transport TCP level relaying and it does not on it's own support any particular protocol.    I expect to be able to deployed all the existing Jetty protocols on the UnixSocket connector: http, http2, http2c, fastcgi, websocket etc.

So we still do not support AJP, no matter how it is transported.

Our decision to drop AJP was based on:
  • pure HTTP proxying outperformed it by at least 20%
  • the versions and evolution of AJP appeared confused and unclear
  • the semantics of mod-balancer appear superior to mod-jk
  • Dealing with forwarded-for headers is pretty simple and we provide a request customizer for that.
  • We had zero commercial clients using AJP and little community support maintaining it.
  • AJP integration with Jetty < 9 was horrible

Having said all that, Jetty-9 is very capable of supporting multiple protocols and it should not be too difficult to rewrite an AJP connector (it would be a rewrite rather than a port of what was there before), but many of the issues listed above would have to be addressed before we made the attempt.

cheers









On 23 October 2015 at 12:04, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/22/15, 5:58 PM, "jetty-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Greg Wilkins" <jetty-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I've created a branch of jetty which has a unix socket connector in it.   This allows fast connections from a local native connection terminator (eg haproxy or nginx) that will hand off without data copies and/or significant dispatch delays.
>
>The main use-case intended for this is simply offloading SSL/TLS, but I'm sure there are many other innovative uses.

Is this in any way analagous or perhaps reasonably substitutable for AJP (which is superior to HTTP proxying, but was removed)?

Losing direct forwarding of REMOTE_USER, certificates, and having to deal with X-Forwarded-For headers and such is a big lose. Does this restore any of the old capabilities?

(Not familiar with nginx, so sorry if it's a dumb question.)

-- Scott

_______________________________________________
jetty-dev mailing list
jetty-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-dev



--

Back to the top