On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 12:22:17PM -0600, William Rowe wrote: > At 10:45 AM 3/20/2003, you wrote: > >I don't really see any point in putting any effort into the shmht code; > >shmcb has been the session cache of choice for a while (and it works > >fine in 2.0 by my testing). I've attached a second patch which removes > >shmht completely, which is the patch I'd recommend. The files > >ssl_util_table.[ch] and ssl_scache_shmht.c can be removed after applying > >this patch. > > I don't necessarily disagree for 2.1-dev, but we've sort of concurred that > users shouldn't have to switch modules or configuration significantly in > a given minor version (e.g. 2.0). Now I'm not arguing that's it's very > unlikely a user successfully used shmht.c, but as a matter of principle, > we shouldn't drop this away from 2.0.
The patch I posted doesn't require users to change anything: if they had configured use of shmht, they'll automatically get shmcb instead on upgrading. (A warning would probably wise with that too I guess) Regards, joe
