Re: mod_ssl NPN API rejig (was Re: Intent to revert commit r1332643)

2013-05-30 Thread Joe Orton
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 03:04:30PM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote: Looks good to me. Thanks! Thanks a lot for reviewing. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1487772 Gregg, thanks for confirming and sorry again about leaving the builds broken. Regards, Joe

Re: mod_ssl NPN API rejig (was Re: Intent to revert commit r1332643)

2013-05-30 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
On Wed, 29 May 2013 17:06:14 +0100 Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:37:14AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote: Oops, yes, RUN_ALL semantics are desired; the misleading API description is my fault, sorry. (I confess I never really understood why RUN_ALL hooks accept

mod_ssl NPN API rejig (was Re: Intent to revert commit r1332643)

2013-05-29 Thread Joe Orton
Guenter, can you test if the attached compiles on Windows? It is nothing special so it should be OK. This redesigns the NPN API with a cheap and crappy callback interface which doesn't rely on the actual hooks API; it is not pretty but it avoids the inter-module hard linkage issue (which is

Re: mod_ssl NPN API rejig (was Re: Intent to revert commit r1332643)

2013-05-29 Thread Matthew Steele
Hi Joe, Two questions about this change: - In modssl_register_npn, it appears that the code creates new npn_advertfns and npn_negofns arrays on every call, even if they already exist. This would seem to prevent multiple modules from registering callbacks. Presumably this is not intended? Am I

Re: mod_ssl NPN API rejig (was Re: Intent to revert commit r1332643)

2013-05-29 Thread Joe Orton
Hi Matthew - thanks for taking a look at the patch so quickly. On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:52:10AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote: Two questions about this change: - In modssl_register_npn, it appears that the code creates new npn_advertfns and npn_negofns arrays on every call, even if they

Re: mod_ssl NPN API rejig (was Re: Intent to revert commit r1332643)

2013-05-29 Thread Matthew Steele
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:52:10AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote: - In modssl_register_npn, it appears that the code creates new npn_advertfns and npn_negofns arrays on every call, even if they already exist. This would

Re: mod_ssl NPN API rejig (was Re: Intent to revert commit r1332643)

2013-05-29 Thread Joe Orton
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:37:14AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote: Oops, yes, RUN_ALL semantics are desired; the misleading API description is my fault, sorry. (I confess I never really understood why RUN_ALL hooks accept both OK and DECLINED values, but then don't actually treat them any

Re: mod_ssl NPN API rejig (was Re: Intent to revert commit r1332643)

2013-05-29 Thread Guenter Knauf
Hi Joe, On 29.05.2013 18:06, Joe Orton wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:37:14AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote: Oops, yes, RUN_ALL semantics are desired; the misleading API description is my fault, sorry. (I confess I never really understood why RUN_ALL hooks accept both OK and DECLINED values,

Re: mod_ssl NPN API rejig (was Re: Intent to revert commit r1332643)

2013-05-29 Thread Matthew Steele
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:37:14AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote: Oops, yes, RUN_ALL semantics are desired; the misleading API description is my fault, sorry. (I confess I never really understood why RUN_ALL hooks accept

Re: mod_ssl NPN API rejig (was Re: Intent to revert commit r1332643)

2013-05-29 Thread Gregg Smith
On 5/29/2013 10:52 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Hi Joe, On 29.05.2013 18:06, Joe Orton wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:37:14AM -0400, Matthew Steele wrote: Oops, yes, RUN_ALL semantics are desired; the misleading API description is my fault, sorry. (I confess I never really understood why