On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Greg Ames wrote:
> Cliff Woolley wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure this has been discussed, but someone please remind me what was
> > decided. Are we going to continue to maintain mod_tls? I'm sure there
> > are some changes that have been made to mod_ssl that would need to be
> > ported over to mod_tls if we are.
>
> <disclaimer: definately not an expert on this stuff>
>
> I believe mod_tls is a layer that isolates mod_ssl from the filter chain
> in 2.0. So we need both. If someone wrote an alterative to mod_ssl,
> presumably that would use mod_tls as well.
Actually, mod_ssl duplicates the logic of mod_tls currently. You don't
need mod_tls to use mod_ssl. Either mod_ssl needs to get the logic
stripped out and it needs to be hooked in to mod_tls (and the fixes from
mod_ssl need to get shifted over to mod_tls), or mod_tls needs to go away.
I prefer the latter...
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottesville, VA
