On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 01:09:28AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > Hi all, > > As if we weren't having enough discussion on this list > I'll throw in something else... > > Could we consider _removing_ all crypto related code > from apr-util (and apr for that matter, since md5 > still lives there)?
Nope. Per the comments already provided. Many apps nowadays use MD5 and/or SHA1 for various kinds of functions. They are useful in a huge variety of tasks -- not just crypto. Since they are generic hashing functions, they can be used as an excellent checksum or as a unique identifier for items. >... > If the apr style api is the reason for the code being > in there I will understand, but I'd suggest a separate > apr-crypto library (which effectively would be a thin > wrapper of openssl). mod_tls and mod_ssl in the codebase are highly dependent upon OpenSSL. It has been suggested they should be more flexible, and work against other libraries (I don't know *what* those libraries are, tho). Doing this in APR (plain, -util, or a new -crypto) would be quite neat. I don't have a lot of thoughts on the matter, tho. > Last reason for removing the code: it prevents requirements > driven fools like me from sending in patches that duplicate > other work :-) Ben assured me that openssl is extremely > portable, so that can't be the issue. Well, I'm already questioning the whole MD4 thing. I can see that Samba needs it, but who else? I'm not entirely sure why we put that into APRUTIL because I'm not sure who *else* might want to have it there. Can anybody name one or two other apps that use MD4? > PS. I do have a crc32 patch laying about (isn't in openssl > or apr(-util) and it is pretty generic. I think it has > some use in projects other than ours, but I'm not sure). > Interested? I haven't seen a need for it, so no. I'd prefer to at least have some *requirements* for stuff like this. And preferably from more than one application. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
