Cool!, I have been using the GitHub code in Visual Studio 2012 with little change for a PowerShell OpenPGP module, would love to see more traction in the project.
On Oct 29, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Jeff Stedfast <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > I've dived into the BouncyCastle code and submitted some pull requests to get > it building in Visual Studio 2010, 2012, and 2013 and setup the NUnit tests > to be compiled as a separate project so that those, like myself, who want to > build the BouncyCastle assembly from Visual Studio (or MonoDevelop) can do so > instead of having to do it via NAnt. > > I was hoping you could merge my commits. > > I'd also like to volunteer to start refactoring the code to take advantage of > generics a bit as it would really aid in API discovery. I've come across a > number of IEnumerable interfaces where I had no idea what object type to > expect until reading through the source code. By using IEnumerable<SomeType>, > it would make that much more obvious and code completion could do all the > work for me ;-) > > I'd be happy to do a lot of this refactoring work, but before I begin, I'd > like to know if this is something you'd accept - I'd prefer not to waste a > bunch of my time if it's not something you'd be interested in. > > Oh, btw, already I've managed to mostly get PGP/MIME working using Bouncy > Castle in my MimeKit library - there's a few issues left and I need to write > up some more format unit tests, but it mostly works at this point. Next, I'll > be rewriting my S/MIME support using Bouncy Castle (it currently uses > System.Security, but that is incomplete in Mono and so only works in Windows). > > Jeff > > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Peter Dettman > <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25/10/2013 10:55 PM, Jeff Stedfast wrote: > The beauty of BouncyCastle's OpenPGP implementation, in my eyes, is that it > is not tied to 32bit vs 64bit or any particular processor architecture. Now, > of course, that can all fall apart if it doesn't actually work or if it's > buggy to the point of not being able to interoperate with gpg and other pgp > implementations. I don't know if it is or isn't. I suspect it works, but if > development has stalled and the OpenPGP implementation is unmaintained, then > it might not be viable because, as other implementations mature and/or bugs > are found, if they don't get fixed, I'm going to want to move into something > else. That's part of what I'm hoping to find out. > The C# version of OpenPGP is a little out-of-date relative to the Java > version, but most problems you are likely to encounter would likely be > resolved by figuring out what changes need to be ported over. The Java > version has benefited from a lot of field reports of interoperability issues, > so I think/hope you will be somewhat pleasantly surprised. > > Pete. > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
