> Fine. Although from a performance point of view you'll not see much
> differences, of course. It's more the functionality you've to compare IMHO.
> For this an overview chart is useful...
Understood, and I will compare functionality, as well as ease of use, and
ease of install.
After all, someone pointed out that mod_SSL came into being to accomodate
those that were intimidated by the alleged complexity of Apache_SSL, so I
believe a comparison of installation procedures should figure in here as
well.
> RPMs? No, please compile from scratch and both packages the same way, of
> course.
The RPM issue came from the 'ease of installation' standpoint - no problem,
I'll do the compile then for both.
>> * Ability to install, co-exist, and work with mod_perl, mod_PHP3/PHP, and
>> other modules (like mod_coldfusion, or mod_asp, etc).
> A good issue.
One that becomes an issue as people add more modules, and require more
functionality.
> All I've to say about this I've already written down in great detail in my
> INSTALL document. For full DSO support you just need a simple
> --enable-shared=ssl for mod_ssl and you should make sure OpenSSL was build
> with "-fpic".
Good enough. I'll use it.
Harry
______________________________________________________________________
Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
