2017-12-11 11:08 GMT+01:00 Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de>:
> > Am 08.12.2017 um 19:35 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Luca Toscano <toscano.l...@gmail.com>
> >> Maybe ManagedDomain and <ManagedDomainDefine>, as iiuc we are going to
> >> for SSLPolicy?
> > Just an observation, http://httpd.apache.org/docs/
> > illustrated that we have no verbs in <Section > directive block
> > titles, thus far.
> > <ManagedDomain > or <MDPolicy > followed by ManagedDomainSet
> > or MDPolicyElect or something similar seems more in keeping with the
> > existing naming convention for directives. Bothers me when we overload
> > with yet one additional naming scheme, that would probably bother our
> > users more than confusing directive names.
> There are important questions on how we progress the design of the server.
> have asked for participation and feedback on the design of ACME support in
> since April. Shoulder clapping, "go ahead!", "fine!".
> Answers to design questions: not really
> Requests for opinion about a "restart" feature: 0
> Code request for a Windows Service restart call: 0
> Request of a serf based implementation of the http client: 0
> Feedback from testing by the team: 0
> Opinions about renaming parts/the whole thing just days before
> a possible release to users who want this: +7
> You got to be kiddding me!
you are right but at the moment, since nobody have really different
opinions, the only thing that "blocks" the backport is the naming of the
ManagedDomain and <ManagedDomain> directives. As you suggested
s/ManagedDomain/MDGroup seems to be ok for most of us, the remaining one is
<ManagedDomain>. <MDGroupDefine> could be a solution, or any other similar
Let's pick one, archive the thread and deliver a nice gift for the holiday
season to all the apache users :)
Thanks for the patience!