> On Aug 26, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:06 PM, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]> > wrote: >> In terms of ease-of-integration, do we see other modules we expect to >> utilize libnghttp2, e.g. mod_proxy_http? If so, this probably isn't the >> right solution, but it makes an interesting and quick stop-gap. > > I would prefer the mod_h2-only arrangement. I think mod_proxy_http is > extremely far away.
Agreed.
