Bruno wrote:
> 1- Are you giong to continue your effort in implementing the Perl
> interface or will you specialize in developing modules to achieve
> particular functionalities?
I'm severely bottlenecked on time so I probably won't be able to
contribute more than maintenance of my existing modules.
> 2- If someone would like to implement the Perl OpenSSL would you
> advise to build it upon what you have done or do something that
> would simply map the functions in the .h of the toolkit and then
> build modules that provide the extra functionality you implemented?
My vision is that the modules should be divided in two layers:
1. low level one-to-one C mapping, automatically generated from
the header files, perhaps using tool such as SWIG (www.swig.org).
These modules should stay automatically in sync with the C
developments and once the build mechanism would be polished
they should be integrated to openssl so that `make' in openssl
tree will also build them and `make install' will install them,
pretty much like it installs header files and libraries.
2. High level app oriented perl only modules, distributed from CPAN
I have toyed with the automatic generation mechanism needed fro 1 and
would be happy to pass on what I learned. I probably do not have time
to actually do the work, but who knows...
As we are in the same town, why don't we have a beer one of these days
and talk it over?
Ben wrote:
> Yeah, you are wrong - anyone can provide the interface, it doesn't have
> to be us.
It does not have to be you, but if production quality module set was
developed, it would make sense to distribute it with openssl.
--Sampo
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
