> On Sep 25, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 25, 2015, at 6:41 AM, Stefan Eissing <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Am 25.09.2015 um 12:32 schrieb Yann Ylavic <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Stefan Eissing >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I see. And rename the configuration options and documentation, while we >>>>> are at it... >>>> >>>> Note that I'm *not* against the name being h2! >>> >>> Yann, I know. And I do not want to say that "http2" is a wrong name. Or >>> that I could not live with it. However, I increasingly feel that such >>> notions as adding a "--enabled-http2" for making it look nicer, is not >>> properly addressing the issue: >>> >>> - Modules are configured with --enable-<modname> >>> - Modules are loaded with LoadModule <modname>_module >>> modules/mod_<modname>.so" >>> - Modules documentation are found in docs/manual/mod/mod_<modname>.html >>> - Config directives are by default <modname, camelcase>* >>> - test cases, etc. ... >>> >> >> Well, as I said, http/1.x is itself implemented as a module, >> and lives in modules/http and is enabled via --enable-http, >> so, to be consistent, http2 should stay in modules/ and be enabled >> via --enable-http2. > > What should be the name of the module? http2_module/mod_http2 or as > currently h2_module/mod_h2?
I'm fine with whatever really at this point :) "Bikeshedding, thy name is httpd" :)
