I agree. 100%.
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 07:39:29PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Rich Salz wrote:
> > What is the problem you are trying to solve? Who has asked for it?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> To play devil's advocate, why don't we get rid of all locks in OpenSSL?
>
> Let's say we split OpenSSL into the classic API, which would consist of
> a wrapper that was careful to lock everything that might be needed
> for the current call, and an underlying "caller responsible for thread-safety"
> layer where
> * only one thread at a time would be allowed to access a particular session object
> * no lazy initialization would be performed; the app would be required
> to initialize OpenSSL in the main thread during startup.
> * no static variables in OpenSSL; everything should be accessed through
> an object pointer.
>
> That should get rid of just about every lock in the code,
> except perhaps those to protect the heap, logging, and engine.
>
> In my server, I'd be more than happy to switch to the 'caller responsible
> for thread-safety' version of the API. I simply don't need OpenSSL to
> protect my threads from shooting each other in the foot; all I need
> is OpenSSL to be designed to let me avoid pointing the gun at my foot.
>
> - Dan
> ______________________________________________________________________
> OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
> Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
