> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bryan wrote: > > that's brian. > > > >> > Implements various encrypt and decrypt methods > > > >> which ones? should they each have their own module? > > > Michael said: > > >No, they are inter-related. Some individual methods can already be > > >found in other modules but are used withing CapnMidNite in a manner > > >that would not be as efficient if the external modules were used > > >instead. > > > > That was a pretty thin answer. More specifically, CapnMidnite implements >
Ok, more specifically, the calls to methods "encode" and 'decode" assume the internal availability to all the module's methods. >From the XS comments # call as: # new_md5 md5 only # new_rc4 rc4 setup # new_md5_rc4 md5+rc4 setup # new_crypt rc4 setup, + hash, rot setup # new_md5_crypt md5+rc4 setup, + hash, rot setup # decode md5+rc4 setup, + hash, rot setup + decrypt The methods md5 and rc4 are usable, but are incidental to the true purpose of the module which is to provide the last 4 functions + method 'license' . These all use numerous internal calls to various internal pieces of md5 and rc4. Specifically: init_md5, prep_key,init_hash_xy,MD5Update,MD5Final These internal method calls are needed to implement the mentioned methods would not be easily exportable in perl since C structure pointers are being passed around. MD5 already exists so implementing another is not what I had in mind. I could do an RC4 module, I suppose, but it would still be needed in its current form for use within this module as is md5 and its internal structures. How about some constructive suggestions or pointers..... I don't want to destroy the functionality for the sake of namespace and would like to get this registered in some fashion so that modules that use it can find it in CPAN. Michael > > MD5 and RC4 + RC4 modified-non-linear > > > MD5 is identical in function to Digest::MD5, but because of the way it > > is used inside the C program, it would be a hassle to use the module > > though it could be done of course. The RC4 implementation is similar to > > Crypt::RC4 but this module appears to be broken and not maintained. > > that sounds like they can be separate modules. i would like to see > a better name that helps people find what they need. i think most > people will have no idea what "CapnMidnite" is (the only references > to that string in Google is your module).
