Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 89244 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jul 2002 16:08:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 89231 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2002 16:08:26 -0000 Reply-To: From: "Ryan Bloom" To: Subject: RE: SSLMutex directive, PR 8122 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:08:29 -0700 Organization: Covalent Technologies Message-ID: <003301c238ac$82a53270$4800000a@KOJ> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > This PR points out a problem with the current SSLMutex handling in > mod_ssl and provides a patch to resolve it. > > I'd rather see a different solution: > > 1) give SSLMutex the same syntax as AcceptMutex, except that SSLMutex > has an additional choice: none. > 2) add SSLMutexFile which is processed like the LockFile directive > > This is a migration problem for people using 2.0.x with mod_ssl, but > for the long term I suspect it will be beneficial not to bundle the > optional lock file name with the mutex mechanism. > > Comments? ++1. Ryan