On 12/9/06, Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, two reasons: We like the GNU coding standard, and I toyed with
the idea to just change the API so that we could make our own code
consistent. But I haven't gotten around to do that yet (that's
because I wrote the code against the original API first before writing
the header file replacement).
The other reason, again of questionable value, is that it strengthens
our copyright on the file and makes it more of a work distinct from
the RSA header file.
Two bad reasons don't necessarily make a good reason, but I still
kinda like it that way. Although I have to admit that the macro
definitions are gross!
I think that a program should be compiled using the free version and
the proprietary version, I don't mind that CK_RV is declared as
unsigned long int and not CK_ULONG, which in turn declared as unsigned
long it... As long as CK_RV is provided.
The same is for every other type of the interface. I don't think that
modifying the structure member names is a good approach.
I don't think that PKCS#11 spec can fit into GNU conventions... And I
don't think that just renaming variables/types changes the
copyright...
So I don't think that these reasons apply... :(
But it is your call... :)
The current state is good enough to be usable.
Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
