On Saturday 26 January 2008 18:46, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2008-01-25 19:46:52]: > > > Any comments? It's a fair chunk of code but it would avoid the need to include > > sun.* private classes which currently prevent the node from being built on > > GCJ, while still having the ability to create SSL certificates for encrypted > > HTTP/FCP/etc. > > I vote against its merging in its current state for two reasons : > 1) we are too close to the release to merge such a patch
It should not be in alpha 2 certainly, and it's easiest to delay committing it until after that. However if we're going to ship 0.7 with SSL support, it makes sense to commit it after 0.7-a2 has shipped satisfactorily? > 2) we shouldn't have the x509 generation code in the node > > As I've already explained on IRC, I do think that we can have it but it > should be in a plugin and an optional feature... have a look to what > others projects do: most of them don't provide a way to generate the > certificates! This may make some sense. I'll ask ET what he thinks. IMHO Freenet is not the same as many of these projects as they are written in C, have extensive install scripts, and are targeted at sysamins, however it may still make sense for it to be a plugin. > > NextGen$ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080126/473932a2/attachment.pgp>
