On phone so I will be brief.
How much of BC specifically do we need? Is it perhaps possible to
implement as much as we can without depending on BC, and only have the
gem install the bits that require BC? Or even -just- BC and we ship
openssl with those BC specific arab throwing an error?
Really there's two issues:
1. We can't ship openssl because we cant ship BC. Solution: ship as
much as we can without BC.
2. Openssl depends on java 1.5 for SSL. Solution: ship without SSL
support, since rails isn't using it by default.
I also like the idea of getting rails to not require openssl, but both
monkeypatching and getting rails core to fix it will take time.
- Charlie
On Dec 12, 2007, at 5:49 PM, Thomas E Enebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So summary so far:
Problems:
A. Our stable branch is supported for Java 1.4 but jruby-openssl
required Java 5. Rails requires openssl.
B. Netbeans (and I presume any IDE which wants to bundle JRuby +
Rails) does not think it can distribute jruby-openssl gem.
1. Is this true based on recently discover bouncy castle FAQ entry
(http://bouncycastle.org/wiki/display/JA1/Frequently+Asked+Questions#FrequentlyAskedQuestions-9.WhatisBouncyCastle%27sexportclassificationintheUnitedStatesofAmerica%3F
)
Solutions Proposed:
1. Build jruby-openssl with Java 1.4 and Java 5 (Bill thinks the
portions we need may work for 1.4)
2. Monkey patch Rails in some way
i. Only implment possible portions of openssl which can be done
by Java itself
1. Ola thinks this is the path to hell fire
ii. Monkey patch Rails itself to provide an alternate default
cookie code (we need to hook this up somehow)
3. Beg...Cajole Rails core to make openssl an optional requirement
for Rails 2.
At this point all options still seem reasonable to me. Either #2
options solve all problems but we need to understand the downsides.
Compiling to 1.4 is also a reasonable solution, but pending legal
clarification it may cause IDE's issues, so I think it is less
desirable than #2 options. #3 is the best for us, but it will not
help current Rails release and there is no guarantee we can convince
them that this is an issue they need to care about.
Any other thoughts? ideas?
-Tom
On Dec 12, 2007 9:36 AM, Nick Sieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/12/07, Ola Bini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So here's a new idea. openssl really sucks for us because it's
such a
monolithic beast.
What if all 'require "openssl"' did on JRuby was load a ruby file
that
contained a bunch of autoloads for all the constants in openssl? We
could attempt to fill in as many as possible in the base JRuby
distribution, and only supply the current error ("please install
jruby-openssl") for the ones that we need it.
No way. Please. It's going to be hell on earth. Or worse. =)
Ok, any better suggestions for getting Rails 2 to run w/o having
jruby-openssl installed? Should we approach Rails core about trying
to
lazily require openssl?
/Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
--
Blog: http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ThomasEEnebo
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
