Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jorton@redhat.com designates
 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender)
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:14:04 +0100
From: Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com>
To: Matthew Steele <mdsteele@google.com>
Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org, Guenter Knauf <fuankg@apache.org>
Subject: Re: mod_ssl NPN API rejig (was Re: Intent to revert commit r1332643)
Message-ID: <20130529151404.GA24489@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Matthew Steele <mdsteele@google.com>,
	dev@httpd.apache.org, Guenter Knauf <fuankg@apache.org>
References: <5196405C.4070203@apache.org>
 <20130529143634.GA24081@redhat.com>
 <CANrcFuUqo3ZB0afazO88BUm3WfnikF2Ojo5U-bkSuy4YOLn6cA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANrcFuUqo3ZB0afazO88BUm3WfnikF2Ojo5U-bkSuy4YOLn6cA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Organization: Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No.
 03798903
  Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Mark Hegarty (Ireland),
 Matt Parson (USA), Charlie Peters (USA)

Hi Matthew - thanks for taking a look at the patch so quickly.

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:52:10AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote:
> Two questions about this change:
> 
> - In modssl_register_npn, it appears that the code creates
> new npn_advertfns and npn_negofns arrays on every call, even if they
> already exist.  This would seem to prevent multiple modules from
> registering callbacks.  Presumably this is not intended?  Am I misreading
> the code?

No, just a braino.  Updated patch attached.

> - The old optional hooks were both declared as RUN_ALL, but the new
> implementation seems to stop calling callbacks as soon as one returns OK,
> which is different behavior than before.  Is there a reason for this change?

I was wondering about this.  The API description weakly implies that OK 
does something different to DECLINED in both cases, which is not true 
for RUN_ALL; so I presumed RUN_FIRST was desired.  Are RUN_ALL semantics 
desired?

Regards, Joe