Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 98233 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2003 23:10:38 -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 98199 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 23:10:38 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jimpop@devsys.jagunet.com Message-Id: Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 18:10:42 -0500 To: dev@httpd.apache.org From: Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: SSLMutex directive, PR 8122 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Looks like someone thought of the SSLMutex should be more like AcceptMutex first. Looking over the archives, I see some minor debate on the addition of an SSLMutexFile. This only applies for file-based mutexes, so I would propose we keep the current 'file:/foo/bar' format. This would avoid an extra directive, especially when not needed. There was also some minor debate on whether this was needed. Personally, it makes sense for there to be some finer control over what SSL uses for its SessionCache mutex. But at the very least, SSLMutex is broken now because it just uses the APR default only. -- =========================================================================== 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