+1 on removing shmht
- It is more complicated, doesn't provide any more features/performance than
shmcb and has been having problems ('cause it was not completely developed).+1 on removing from the 2.0 - not working/buggy code causes more user confusions/frustration, so it's best removed ASAP - shmcb has proved stable enuf to be made as the only choice - (Personally, it more confusing to have 2 different options which do the same thing using the same resources and giving the same set of features - without any advantages of one over another) --Madhu -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Trawick To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/21/03 4:25 AM Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove shmht from mod_ssl William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 10:45 AM 3/20/2003, you wrote: >>I don't really see any point in putting any effort into the shmht code; >>shmcb has been the session cache of choice for a while (and it works >>fine in 2.0 by my testing). I've attached a second patch which removes >>shmht completely, which is the patch I'd recommend. The files >>ssl_util_table.[ch] and ssl_scache_shmht.c can be removed after applying >>this patch. > > > I don't necessarily disagree for 2.1-dev, but we've sort of concurred that > users shouldn't have to switch modules or configuration significantly in > a given minor version (e.g. 2.0). Now I'm not arguing that's it's very > unlikely a user successfully used shmht.c, but as a matter of principle, > we shouldn't drop this away from 2.0. If shmht is clearly broken (i.e., we can't expect that it would have worked properly thus far in 2.0 releases) and shmcb is really the session cache of choice, I'm all for ripping out shmht from 2.0 ASAP to prevent user confusion rather than putting in some bandaids that don't really make it work.
