"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 06:20 AM 5/24/2002, you wrote: > >Cliff Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On 23 May 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > > > > > Existing apachectl keywords are still supported for now (except for > > > > some alternate spellings of "startssl" -- whats up with that stuff?). > > > > > > >sslstart|start-SSL) > > $HTTPD -k startssl > > ERROR=$? > > ;; > > > >(well, I'm calling anything but "startssl" an alternate spelling; I > >dunno what came first, but it is "-k startssl" which httpd supports) > > Can I ask WHY? -k has never supported anything but start/stop/restart > and has always required a seperate -D SSL argument on Win32. > > I see the advantage of a simple apachectl doit verb that includes ssl. > However, overloading -k start -D SSL with -k startssl seems outright > silly. We can't argue back-compat here, -k didn't exist before.
I think that this is your main point (please confirm): don't support "httpd -k startssl", and instead force the user (or apachectl) to run "httpd -k startssl -DSSL" One issue that may affect your opinion: historic apachectl verbs are to be considered deprecated; the vision is that apachectl is just a wrapper script whose user interface is the same as httpd. Thinking long-term (e.g., Apache 2.1 or whatever), would you want the user to have to do httpd -k start -DSSL instead of httpd -k startssl ? -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
