It seems like you can either be correct or you have to make it easy for
people who refuse to read the background information.
"mod_jk-eapi.so" is for the EAPI (Extended Application Programming Interface) of
Apache. You USUALLY need the EAPI when you install mod_ssl module for Apache.
But you can have Apache EAPI without having mod_ssl installed/loaded.
So, you can have the combinations:
Apache + EAPI + (no mod_ssl) + mod_jk-eapi.so
and you can have the combination
Apache + EAPI + mod_ssl + mod_jk-eapi.so
But you cannot have combination
Apache + (no EAPI) + mod_ssl + mod_jk-eapi.so
or
Apache + (no EAPI) + mod_jk-eapi.so
But you can have:
Apache + (no EAPI) + mod_jk-noeapi.so
In other words, it is not if mod_ssl installed with Apache.
It is if Apache was patched to use EAPI. So the mod_jk-eapi.so is a correct
name, and mod_jk-ssl.so is not, since mod_jk variant does not depend on ssl
presence in Apache.
Jan
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Michael Weissenbacher wrote:
> >How many times I have answered to that ?
> >eapi is for apache compiled with mod_ssl
> >noeapi for std apache
>
> so why not name mod_jk-eapi.so -> mod_jk-ssl.so?
>
> michael
>
Jan K. Labanowski | phone: 614-292-9279, FAX: 614-292-7168
Ohio Supercomputer Center | Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1224 Kinnear Rd, | http://www.ccl.net/chemistry.html
Columbus, OH 43212-1163 | http://www.osc.edu/
