Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030318194453.024f1e60@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:47:42 -0600
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@apache.org>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/ssl mod_ssl.c mod_ssl.h
  ssl_engine_config.c ssl_engine_mutex.c
In-Reply-To: <n2m-g.1g3hfoe77u0bandparker@news.perlig.de>
References: <20030223171244.37369.qmail@icarus.apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At 06:19 PM 3/18/2003, Andr=E9 Malo wrote:
>* jim@apache.org wrote:
>
>>        if (strcEQ(arg, "none") || strcEQ(arg, "no")) {
>>            mc->nMutexMode  =3D SSL_MUTEXMODE_NONE;
>>        }
>>   +    /* NOTE: previously, 'yes' implied 'sem' */
>>   +    else if (strcEQ(arg, "default") || strcEQ(arg, "yes")) {
>>   +        mc->nMutexMode  =3D SSL_MUTEXMODE_USED;
>>   +        mc->nMutexMech =3D APR_LOCK_DEFAULT;
>
>ehm, sorry for that late response to that ;-)
>But shouldn't we follow our own conventions and (at least also) recognize=
=20
>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