From: sameer <sameer@c2.org>
Message-Id: <199512011347.FAA08196@infinity.c2.org>
Subject: Re: Survey information...and names for Apache
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 05:47:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9512010949.AA12459@tees.elsevier.co.uk> from "Andrew Wilson" at
 Dec 1, 95 09:49:29 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

> > 
> > Perhaps the way to go is to make it possible for Apache-SSL to be a proper
> > module instead of a monster patch (which can probably be done without
> > explicitly inserting crypto hooks - its more a matter of abstracting the
> > idea of a "connection" a little).
[...]
> 
> *this* is the reason we suggested that it'd be best to keep
> SSL-specific code out of the original distribution.  It is *still*
> vital that we do this.
> 

	I agree. The os_conn * patches are *not* crypto specific. The
#ifdef APACHE_SSL stuff is obviously crypto specific and it would be
nice to be able to move that out into a module, so there is more that
needs to be done than just the os_conn stuff, but it is doable.
	In its current incarnation, apache/ssl shouldn't be part of
apache, but I think if it is sufficiently abstracted out of the core,
US-people can still submit patches to the non-SSL portions of the
code.
	(Why in hell am I up this early?)

-- 
sameer						Voice:   510-601-9777
Community ConneXion				FAX:     510-601-9734
The Internet Privacy Provider			Dialin:  510-658-6376
http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest")		sameer@c2.org