On Apr 20, 2015 2:32 AM, "Joe Orton" <jor...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 06:42:04AM +0200, Kaspar Brand wrote: > > On 15.04.2015 18:36, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > > However, the actual issue here is that mod_ssl is squatting the SSL_ namespace. > > > Historically this may have made sense (it seems mod_ssl and OpenSSL have > > > shared history/authors). Bill Rowe suggested to try moving mod_ssl's > > > functions into the ap_ namespace to avoid such clashes in the future. > > > > Agreed that mod_ssl should avoid stepping into the SSL_* yard. As > > pointed out by Jeff, ap_* is fairly foreign in the mod_ssl case, though, > > and my preference is for s/SSL_/ssl_/ for functions and > > s/SSL_/MODSSL_/ for constants (in the latter case, there's actually > > quite some more stuff lurking - SSL_OPT_*, SSL_PROTOCOL_* etc.). > > It would be safer to go with a "modssl_" prefix for functions too, I've > sometimes tried to use that for new things though probably not > consistently. OpenSSL's libssl.so does export symbols using the "ssl_" > prefix, though they are probably all internal things which shouldn't be > global.
I concur, but can we quit playing fetch me a rock? modssl_*() namespace? Final answer? +1 here to either ssl_ or modssl_
