In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Isn't mod_tls a prerequisit for mod_ssl? Why would they be independent? In
> other words, why would a user have mod_tls without mod_ssl? And why would
> somebody have mod_ssl without mod_tls?
>
> I'm thinking *both* modules would key off the --with-ssl and/or --enable-ssl
> switches.
mod_tls and mod_ssl are unrelated. mod_tls was the first shot Ben did
for us. mod_ssl is the port of my Apache 1.3's mod_ssl to Apache 2.0.
The idea is that mod_ssl takes over the way SSL/TLS is hooked into
Apache 2.0 from mod_tls. Then if the mod_ssl port shows success and we
are all happy in the future, the old mod_tls can disappear. Whether then
mod_ssl is still named mod_ssl or is renamed to mod_tls or mod_ssltls
or whatever is not important. That's a decision for the future and a
prerequisite is that we are happy with mod_ssl. Currently we just try
to integrate Apache 1.3's mod_ssl into Apache 2.0 without destroying
mod_tls. So at least temporarily both will exist. At least as long as
mod_tls is not integrated into mod_ssl.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
