On Sun 27 Nov 2011 10:27:58 AM CST, bcs wrote: > On 11/26/2011 04:19 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: >> >> How about putting a disclaimer on the module warning the code hasn't >> been through a rigorous security audit and point them at well >> established C libraries if they need that sort of assurance. > > What does that gain over implementing the first itteration in terms of > well established C libraries and then replacing that with native > implementations as the code goes been through a rigorous security audit? > > Or how about do both as API compatible implementations? That would > work for people who need the proven security and people who can't > afford external dependencies as well as allow them to be swapped out > for each other with minimal effort once the native code is proven. >
I do like this idea. swap implementations by simply swapping import and linking? nice.
