On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 09:00:08AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > So... Concerns? Suggestions? Etc.? Speak up, or forever* ask me to > fix > > it after committing ;) (*Let's not be ridiculous though) > > Interesting stuff! > > I do think it is preferable to keep mod_ssl.h toolkit-agnostic. Because > the API you are adding is not indended to be "private", I'd suggest > mod_ssl_openssl.h or something like that instead. > I'll do that. FWIW, I think it is reasonable to say "This *is* a private mod_ssl interface for the purposes of introducing some modularity within this particular SSL/TLS implementation, and these interfaces aren't intended for third-party modules." That's not how I coded it, but now that somebody has actually looked I'm curious about your thoughts. > Regards, Joe > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/ http://edjective.org/
