On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 08:32:18AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
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
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
On 14 Apr 2014, at 2:03 PM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
Interesting stuff!
I do think it is preferable to keep mod_ssl.h toolkit-agnostic.
+1.
Because
the API you are adding is not indended to be private, I'd suggest
mod_ssl_openssl.h or something like that instead.
Pass what
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
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 14 Apr 2014, at 2:03 PM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
Interesting stuff!
I do think it is preferable to keep mod_ssl.h toolkit-agnostic.
+1.
Because
the API you are adding is not indended to be
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 08:32:18AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
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.
