> Am 23.02.2021 um 12:18 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>:
>
>
>
> On 2/23/21 11:26 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 23.02.2021 um 11:14 schrieb Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com>:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 05:28:03PM +0100, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>>> Regarding my proposal to add SSL related inquiry functions to our core
>>>> server, here
>>>> is a patch for the "ssl_is_https()" function. This allows:
>>>>
>>>> a) anyone to inquire about a connections SSLiness without the optional
>>>> function retrieval.
>>>> It will itself call such a function provided by a module. So this should
>>>> make anyone
>>>> using the new ap_ssl_is_ssl(c) remain compatible to existing ssl modules.
>>>
>>> This makes sense to me except, obviously, I will start a fight to
>>> bikeshed the naming, since "SSL is SSL" scans quite weirdly?
>>> ap_is_https() or ap_conn_is_{ssl,tls}() or something would be better
>>> IMO?
>>
>> Was ping-pong in this as well. But we need to extend this for other 'ssl'
>> optional functions and I thought keeping a comming 'ap_ssl_' prefix is
>> overall better to parse. But I am not strong opinioned on this.
>
> Maybe ap_ssl_conn_is_{ssl,tls}() is a middle ground with respect to the need
> for further ap_ssl_ functions?
Fine with me!
