Two POV for separating out the SSL configuration : 1. As Ryan mentioned, SSL is not built into the binary - so, why put the SSL information in the httpd.conf at all. Another view is if a user doesn't want to enable SSL, why should he at all see any SSL config in the httpd.conf 2. The no. of possible SSL config parameters are more than any other individual module (which i know of). So, if all/most of the SSL parameters is enabled, it's makes the httpd.conf look big / uneasy.
I'm not sure the above explaination makes sense. As regards your POV - I feel that there should be sufficient information in the config file, giving the details of the various SSL directives. So, just including the minimal config. information would not be ideal (to me). Thx -Madhu -----Original Message----- From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 6:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SSL configuration file On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:06:09PM -0400, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote: > Oh !!.. that's right :-).. I had the DocumentRoot setup with full path in > the v-host configuration, and hence the confusion.. I thought the ServerRoot > *is* required in setting it up.. > But does it really matter if we have the @@ServerRoot@@ variable in the ssl > configuration file ?.. It should be really simple to 'sed' it to the prefix > that's configured by the user - right ?.. I'm obviously missing something here... Shouldn't the most simplisitic config syntax for mod_ssl simply be: <IfModule mod_ssl.c> <VirtualHost _default_:443> DocumentRoot htdocs SSLEngine on SSLCertificateFile /path/to/my/certificate/file </VirtualHost> </IfModule> I'm just not really seeing why we need this config to be separated out into another file. We don't need to have an example that shows everything - just the most simplistic and common case. Anything else should be RTFM. -- justin
