I'd also be interested in benchmarking comparisons as I've been working on a proof of concept using Blake3 to do similarly (I have a pure Java implementation and a JNI version that ultimately invokes the reference C implementation, though I've also wondered about linking the reference Rust implementation). The potential advantage to linking in the native implementations here would be in taking advantage of CPU-specific extensions like SSE, AVX, NEON, etc., which aren't accessible from the JVM without JNI or other patches to the JDK itself. If the overhead turns out to be non-negligible, then we should probably keep the native code bindings to commons-crypto while porting pure Java implementations to commons-codec.
On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 at 09:25, Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net> wrote: > > ... and also do benchmarking early, the native interface overhead might be a > problem so that pure java (intrinsic) code is much faster > > > -- > http://bernd.eckenfels.net > ________________________________ > Von: Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > Gesendet: Sunday, February 28, 2021 2:45:26 PM > An: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > Betreff: Re: [crypto] Interest in adding support for cryptographic hash > function? > > That sounds reasonable to me. I think once we see a PR, we'll get a better > idea. Start small IMO. > > Gary > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 13:51 Alex Remily <alex.rem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'd be exposing additional elements of the OpenSSL API via additions to the > > commons crypto API. Since I wouldn't be adding any additional > > dependencies, I would expect that licensing and portability would remain > > unchanged. Would it not? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alex > > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 1:08 PM Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Le sam. 27 févr. 2021 à 19:00, Bernd Eckenfels > > > <e...@zusammenkunft.net> a écrit : > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I don’t think it’s a Good idea to introduce native dependencies to > > > formerly pure Java projects. > > > > > > +1 > > > [I thought that the idea was a (pure) Java implementation.] > > > > > > > So i think native optimized hash implementations would fit better in > > > commons-crypto. So I would say go for it, keep in mind license clearance > > > and portability. > > > > > > > > Gruß > > > > Bernd > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
