Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007, Goetz Babin-Ebell wrote:
--On Jun 12, 2007 18:28:49 +0200 Nanno Langstraat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
v2 of the SHA save patch.
Is there a special reason to limit it to SHA ?
Why not a EVP_MD_CTX_{load|save} ?
That would be the preferred option since we've discouraged applications from
using the low level digest routines for some time.
I can add the Save/Load API to the EVP level. If / when there comes a
consensus that the feature will go in and everyone is OK with the API
that we're working out.
It will take a little typing, because the new EVP callback function
pointers will need to be initialized to NULL in all (but one) of the
static EVP_MD structures...
Nanno
PS. On the "Drop" name issue, is the name "SHA1_Abandon()" perhaps felt
to be an improvement over "SHA1_Drop()" ?
The EVP level has an internal callback named "cleanup()", but we can not
adopt that name because it already has an internal meaning that differs
from what the user-visible API would be (cleanup() is also called after
"final()").
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [email protected]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
