You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> on 2003/03/19 01:19:30 UTC
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/ssl mod_ssl.c mod_ssl.h ssl_engine_config.c ssl_engine_mutex.c
* jim@apache.org wrote:
> if (strcEQ(arg, "none") || strcEQ(arg, "no")) {
> mc->nMutexMode = SSL_MUTEXMODE_NONE;
> }
> + /* NOTE: previously, 'yes' implied 'sem' */
> + else if (strcEQ(arg, "default") || strcEQ(arg, "yes")) {
> + mc->nMutexMode = SSL_MUTEXMODE_USED;
> + mc->nMutexMech = APR_LOCK_DEFAULT;
ehm, sorry for that late response to that ;-)
But shouldn't we follow our own conventions and (at least also) recognize
On|Off here (instead of yes/no)?
nd
--
>>> Muschelflucht-Zusatzeinrichtung.
>> Shell-Escape ist ja noch klar, aber `Zusatzeinrichtung'?
> extension?
Feature. -- gefunden in de.org.ccc
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/ssl mod_ssl.c mod_ssl.h
ssl_engine_config.c ssl_engine_mutex.c
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
At 1:00 PM +0100 3/19/03, André Malo wrote:
>* William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> At 06:19 PM 3/18/2003, André Malo wrote:
>>>* jim@apache.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> if (strcEQ(arg, "none") || strcEQ(arg, "no")) {
>>>> mc->nMutexMode = SSL_MUTEXMODE_NONE;
>>>> }
>>>> + /* NOTE: previously, 'yes' implied 'sem' */
>>>> + else if (strcEQ(arg, "default") || strcEQ(arg, "yes")) {
>>>> + mc->nMutexMode = SSL_MUTEXMODE_USED;
>>>> + mc->nMutexMech = APR_LOCK_DEFAULT;
>>>
>>>ehm, sorry for that late response to that ;-)
>>>But shouldn't we follow our own conventions and (at least also) recognize
>>>On|Off here (instead of yes/no)?
>>
>> I was about to say that 'on' implies that 'yes' is a correct setting going
>> forward, and that we only hoped to ensure continued success of existing
>> configs. But now that I think about it, we are saying 'default locking if
>> simply turned on' - so I suppose 'on' would also be alright in that context.
>>
>> On the other hand, no, none and off all seem like reasonable flags to disable
>> the mutex altogether. Adding off wouldn't be a bad thing.
>
>Ok, if there come no objections, I'm going to put it in :)
>
+1 here... Don't forget the docs, and for 2.0 and 2.1
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/ssl mod_ssl.c mod_ssl.h ssl_engine_config.c ssl_engine_mutex.c
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 06:19 PM 3/18/2003, André Malo wrote:
>>* jim@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> if (strcEQ(arg, "none") || strcEQ(arg, "no")) {
>>> mc->nMutexMode = SSL_MUTEXMODE_NONE;
>>> }
>>> + /* NOTE: previously, 'yes' implied 'sem' */
>>> + else if (strcEQ(arg, "default") || strcEQ(arg, "yes")) {
>>> + mc->nMutexMode = SSL_MUTEXMODE_USED;
>>> + mc->nMutexMech = APR_LOCK_DEFAULT;
>>
>>ehm, sorry for that late response to that ;-)
>>But shouldn't we follow our own conventions and (at least also) recognize
>>On|Off here (instead of yes/no)?
>
> I was about to say that 'on' implies that 'yes' is a correct setting going
> forward, and that we only hoped to ensure continued success of existing
> configs. But now that I think about it, we are saying 'default locking if
> simply turned on' - so I suppose 'on' would also be alright in that context.
>
> On the other hand, no, none and off all seem like reasonable flags to disable
> the mutex altogether. Adding off wouldn't be a bad thing.
Ok, if there come no objections, I'm going to put it in :)
nd
--
my @japh = (sub{q~Just~},sub{q~Another~},sub{q~Perl~},sub{q~Hacker~});
my $japh = q[sub japh { }]; print join #########################
[ $japh =~ /{(.)}/] -> [0] => map $_ -> () # André Malo #
=> @japh; # http://pub.perlig.de/ #
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/ssl mod_ssl.c mod_ssl.h
ssl_engine_config.c ssl_engine_mutex.c
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
At 06:19 PM 3/18/2003, André Malo wrote:
>* jim@apache.org wrote:
>
>> if (strcEQ(arg, "none") || strcEQ(arg, "no")) {
>> mc->nMutexMode = SSL_MUTEXMODE_NONE;
>> }
>> + /* NOTE: previously, 'yes' implied 'sem' */
>> + else if (strcEQ(arg, "default") || strcEQ(arg, "yes")) {
>> + mc->nMutexMode = SSL_MUTEXMODE_USED;
>> + mc->nMutexMech = APR_LOCK_DEFAULT;
>
>ehm, sorry for that late response to that ;-)
>But shouldn't we follow our own conventions and (at least also) recognize
>On|Off here (instead of yes/no)?
I was about to say that 'on' implies that 'yes' is a correct setting going
forward, and that we only hoped to ensure continued success of existing
configs. But now that I think about it, we are saying 'default locking if
simply turned on' - so I suppose 'on' would also be alright in that context.
On the other hand, no, none and off all seem like reasonable flags to disable
the mutex altogether. Adding off wouldn't be a bad thing.
Bill