I am a SUPER +1 on the design, architecture, etc... As far as the naming, it seems like a bikeshed to me... JFDI ;)
> On Dec 11, 2017, at 5:08 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> > wrote: > > >> 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> wrote: >>> Maybe ManagedDomain and <ManagedDomainDefine>, as iiuc we are going to use >>> for SSLPolicy? >> >> Just an observation, >> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/mod/quickreference.html >> 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. I > have asked for participation and feedback on the design of ACME support in > httpd > 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! > > Cheers, > > Stefan > > > > > >
