On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Nick Kew <n...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2017-12-23 at 08:20 +0100, Stefan Eissing wrote: > >> > Ugh. Fine for trunk, but that's a lot of complexity to foist on >> > a stable branch. A module would not only need to check MMN, >> > but also implement fallback behaviour if there are no flags. >> > So why not KISS and stick with that fallback for all 2.4? >> >> Not sure, I parse that. Any module that does nothing continues to >> see the same behaviour than before. Where does the complexity >> arrive? > > But a module cannot ever *use* it without checking MMN > *AND* implementing fallback behaviour for being loaded > into an httpd built with the old struct - and consequently > old API and ABI. > > That's bad enough to work through once, let alone maintain longer-term! > > Whereas the fallback, by definition, works in all cases.
Right, but hence nothing prevents the modules from implementing the fallback only, just as if "flags" were not in 2.4.x. It's not like depending on the MMN is mandatory. It seems that no module really needed it until mod_md, or they already implemented the fallback. If we make it to 2.4.next for mod_md needs (which anyway requires mod_ssl 2.4.next), at least it simplifies the code in mod_ssl... > > Agreed, post-config per-server stuff is clumsy: I have a distant > memory from 2.0 days of hacking some ugly workaround, though the > details elude me. But wouldn't it make more sense to review that > in 2.5/trunk rather than the stable branch? It shouldn't hurt in 2.4, IMHO. Regards, Yann.
