On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 09:36:45PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Could you please tell me where in the manual pages or in which
> > document that is documented? That would be really helpful.
> 
> Didn't this all start because you didn't trust the documentation?

I do trust the documentation. Others around me don't trust it.
And I wanted to know whether the warning in the SSL_read manpage
about the WANT_WRITE and WANT_READ retries is still valid or not.

All you said was: 'If you set the flags which make SSL_write easier
to handle, then everything it will be alright.'. And that stands in direct
contradiction to the documentation.

It also wasn't clear to me what 'everything' meant. I though you
have totally missed the point of my previous mail. Where I asked about
SSL_read.

Did you actually mean this: 'If you set the flags which make SSL_write
easier to handle, then SSL_read will also be fine.'?

[.snip.]
> > And the man page of SSL_CTX_set_mode says _nothing_ about SSL_read.
> >
> > I could of course just belive you, but I'm not a religious person.
> 
>       If you won't trust a person or the documentation, you'll have to look at
> the source yourself. (I don't blame you, that's what I did. If it helps, I'm
> the one who added OpenSSL support to ConferenceRoom, and it's multi-threaded
> and non-blocking.)

I trust the documentation more than a single person which only says:
'everything will be alright.'

Because 'everything' does not match 'SSL_read' for me.

But if you really meant that SSL_read retries don't need the same buffer
when I set those flags, then I guess I can trust you a bit more :-)

I would be even more trustfull if someone of the openssl developers
would say a word about this. Something like:
'Yes yes, the man pages are a bit obsolete, you can pass different buffers
to SSL_read for retries.'

Robin
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List                       [email protected]
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to