> -----Original Message----- > From: Geoff Thorpe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Geoff Thorpe > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 8:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Banginwar, Rajesh > Subject: Re: Considering SSL and Cryto libraries for LSB > > On June 29, 2005 08:44 pm, Banginwar, Rajesh wrote: > > So far from the preliminary analysis that we have done (by > looking at > > some of the OSS applications) we see both libssl and libcrypto being > > used. E.g. from libcrypto I find functions in EVP, RSA, MD5 and DSA > > sets more commonly used than others. Unfortunately this is not an > > exhaustive study. Do you or anyone on this project have > data suggesting > > which APIs are candidates for LSB inclusion both from demand and > > stability point of view? > > I'm not sure how you would harvest this kind of information. > From a build > perspective, it may be quite difficult to disentangle one API > from the > next. I guess someone truly masoc^H^H^H^H^Hdedicated could create an > alternative "openssl-lsb.h" header to build against - one > that declared > only the subset of functionality that mattered from an LSB > perspective > and then see how external apps fare building against that. However > there's a lot of macro-abuse in some areas of the code, and if this > "shimming" got tangled up in trying to reproduce ASN1 > definitions then I > don't even want to contemplate where it might lead... > > Something to think about I guess. But it certainly seems > hairy to attempt > to standardise too much invariance across major releases that > we expect > will ... um ... vary.
The intention here is not to identify the exact apis used by apps, but to get an idea about which APIs are more commonly used and hence the candidate for LSB inclusion. E.g. if EVP APIs are commonly used, then all or most of these APIs in this set should be considered for inclusion to LSB. By doing this, we may be able to stage the problem for these libraries (in the first stage just work on certain set of APIs and update the function definitions as discussed in other emails on this thread). I am not sure how good a approach that is for OpenSSL. > > > I just checked the release history for openssl and it is > encouraging to > > see the major releases are years apart. I see that with > some efforts it > > may be possible to hide some of the data structure dependencies (as > > Steve pointed out in other emails on this thread) and get > some sets of > > APIs to a "stable" level and push for LSB inclusion. There > was at least > > one comment from application developer encouraging this > even though it > > will require major changes. > > It sounds like a fairly labourious process though (ie. I > doubt we'll be > dispersing the volunteers with tear-gas or anything). > > Cheers, > Geoff > > -- > Geoff Thorpe > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.openssl.org/ > > ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
