On Mon, Nov 07, 2005, Pradosh Adoni wrote: > > pradosh.adoni> for eg. Of the current list of interfaces which ones > > pradosh.adoni> are most definitely going to be deprecated in future > > pradosh.adoni> versions ? > > > > For the longest time, we have recommended to use the EVP interface > > rather than lower level crypto functions. However, not even the EVP > > interface has been safe from incompatible changes, BUT those changes > > have been comparatively few. > so ,would it make more sense to standardize on the EVP interface as > opposed to the lower level functions ? This would force developers > seeking LSB certification to go by that recommendation, unfortunately > we can't say how well this would be accepted. > Or if we do standardize on the lower level stuff , then we would need > to indentify interfaces which are ABSOULTELY NOT going to change in > the coming versions, but I don't know how feasible that is .. >
I'm assuming that by "ABSOULTELY NOT going to change in the coming versions" means "not going to change in incompatible ways" rather that "not going to change at all". Some compatible changes may well be likely. As for incompatible chanhes there is one nasty incompatibility with PKCS#11 which EVP might have to address if we ever need a full PKCS#11 ENGINE. Even that though could be done in a compatible way. Steve. -- Dr Stephen N. Henson. Email, S/MIME and PGP keys: see homepage OpenSSL project core developer and freelance consultant. Funding needed! Details on homepage. Homepage: http://www.drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
