Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>
> In article <35D318A7.86A7790B@algroup.co.uk> you wrote:
>
> >[...]
> >> So people, don't think about mod_ssl and Apache-SSL as competing packages.
> >> Think about them very similar you think about ECGS and GCC. The one part of
> >> the community is happy with GCC, the other with ECGS. Why? Because people have
> >> different requirements. Some like conservative approaches better, others like
> >> modern approaches better. That's life. And perhaps that was the reason why my
> >> attempt failed to try to persuade Ben over the last weeks to merge Apache-SSL
> >> with mod_ssl. Because perhaps there was no real need to merge the
> >> conservative Apache-SSL approach with a modern and cleanup up mod_ssl
> >> approach. The world perhaps needs both ;_)
>
> > I find this irritating. What is "modern" about mod_ssl?
>
> Sorry for the bad word "modern". I didn't know a good word to explain the
> EGCS-like approach. Perhaps one can entitle it "an approach which uses newer
> technologies, is more open to new feature requests, etc.". With "newer
> technologies" I mean for instance APACI, the *.module stubs, the ap_log_error
> and other such newer Apache 1.3 things.
Apache-SSL has all these (except the *.module, which I cannot see a need
for, but if there were one I wouldn't hesitate to use it). So, there
goes "newer technologies". As for "more open to new feature requests" -
huh? When have I ever blocked a feature?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org/
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |
A.L. Digital Ltd, |Apache-SSL author http://www.apache-ssl.org/
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache/
WE'RE RECRUITING! http://www.aldigital.co.uk/recruit/