httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: mod_ssl to-do items
Date Fri, 07 Mar 2003 07:04:06 GMT
--On Thursday, March 6, 2003 12:42 PM -0500 Geoff Thorpe 
<geoff@geoffthorpe.net> wrote:

> linking apache. I'm wondering if the above problem is a consequence of
> us explicitly setting linker syntax and not letting autotools do their
> job properly? Anyway, the patch is there if someone wants to see if it
> helps with this issue as well.

I think the issue is that mod_ssl as a DSO has to have a special set of linker 
flags just for *it* rather than relying on the original set of libraries (i.e. 
pull in OpenSSL).  The proper solution to this would be to allow a module to 
explicitly have its own compiler, linker, etc. flags.  (mod_deflate as a DSO 
could benefit if only it linked against libz.)

It's a slightly more generic problem than just mod_ssl.

>>     * session cache store should be pluggable
>
> I'd like to speak with the person who's behind this, as I'm waiting for

(Pardon me while I go off on a tangent...)

Note that there really isn't a single person who is responsible for mod_ssl. 
The only person who may claim that is Ralf and he hasn't been involved for 
years.  All of us on this list are implicitly responsible.  Some people are 
more involved than others though - Madhu and DougM have been beneficial to 
keeping it running though (among others that I have forgotten right now - 
sorry!) - but the point of adding mod_ssl to our tree was so that it could be 
group-maintained rather than a specific individual.  So, I wouldn't go look 
for a specific person to talk to.  Whomever that person would be should be 
reading this list.  Just start having a conversation about what you'd like to 
see happen on this list and people will magically start to chime in.  And, 
keep submitting patches about what you'd like to see fixed - it's the surefire 
way of getting our attention.  (And, simply repost if you don't hear anything 
in a week...)

>>     * the shmcb code should just align its memory segment rather than
>>       jumping through all the "safe" memcpy and memset hoops
>
> I wrote shmcb and I don't think the person who wrote this quite
> understands why this "jumping through hoops" is done. Trying to align
> all the relevant data will cost more than just a few wasted bytes of
> storage, and I respectfully suggest that the "safe" accessors (which
> aren't speed-critical) would be easier to maintain. Again, I'm available
> to bash these ideas out if anyone's interested.

It's probably under the idea that we'd save a few cycles and make the code 
more understandable if we relied upon alignment.  In fact, I believe the 
second argument is the more compelling one.  I find the safe calls a 
tremendous difficulty in understanding the shmcb code (which, AIUI, is broken 
right now).  -- justin

Mime
View raw message