On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 25, 2015, at 6:41 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Am 25.09.2015 um 12:32 schrieb Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>: >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Stefan Eissing >>> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> I see. And rename the configuration options and documentation, while we >>>> are at it... >>> >>> Note that I'm *not* against the name being h2! >> >> Yann, I know. And I do not want to say that "http2" is a wrong name. Or that >> I could not live with it. However, I increasingly feel that such notions as >> adding a "--enabled-http2" for making it look nicer, is not properly >> addressing the issue: >> >> - Modules are configured with --enable-<modname> >> - Modules are loaded with LoadModule <modname>_module >> modules/mod_<modname>.so" >> - Modules documentation are found in docs/manual/mod/mod_<modname>.html >> - Config directives are by default <modname, camelcase>* >> - test cases, etc. ... >> > > Well, as I said, http/1.x is itself implemented as a module, > and lives in modules/http and is enabled via --enable-http, > so, to be consistent, http2 should stay in modules/ and be enabled > via --enable-http2.
What should be the name of the module? http2_module/mod_http2 or as currently h2_module/mod_h2?
