"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 10:52 AM 5/24/2002, you wrote: > >"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > 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" > > err... still a bit redundant, httpd -k start -DSSL should suffice [I'm pretty > sure that's what you ment to ask :-]
yep, I meant "-k start -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 > > Yes. How many other server modules [protocols especially, such as > pop3 and so on] will beg the same. It's bogus. > > If you configure your machine for SSL, then run it as SSL already!!! I'm +.6 on removing the "httpd -k startssl" hack already committed (my only reservation is due to my lack of interaction with the folks that actually use the startssl|sslstart thingie). Heck, I'm even fine with completely ditching the old apachectl verbs with 2.0.37 and imposing the un-onerous task on admins of converting to the httpd syntax. Once that happens the help text for httpd matches what apachectl will accept. For the moment I'll wait until I hear more opinions before deviating from the plan outlined in the original discussion. Thanks, -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
