on 1/28/02 9:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] purportedly said:

>> why not use an existing database abstraction layer such as libdbi or ODBC?
> 
> Too abstract - queries are done with SQL statements.  That's not a
> problem with a RDBMS backend, but requires a lot of extra code with
> everything else.  Even if you identify a set of standard query strings
> and use hardcoded strcmp(), maintenance is a nightmare.

Actually, not necessarily. As with other software that can use DB backends,
simply expanding the configuration file options to include table and column
names (notwithstanding connectivity parameters) will give a great amount of
flexibility and at the same time liberate the details from the core code.

> All you really need is a simple api: store(), remove(), lookup(),
> revoke() (or update()?), maybe a few more, and a dynamic library
> loader.  And some configuration code that allows the user to specify
> which dynamic library to load.  (Then again, in this case it may be
> okay to just create a symlink from some standard name to the desired
> dynamic library.)

I would imagine this is how it would be done internally in any case, whether
as loadable or by a compile-time option. The issue would then be whether the
openssl team would create the "plugins", or leave it to third party
developers. I suppose it is a quality control issue. But functionality such
as I mention above will have to be incorporated into the core code or users
will have to use whatever schema conventions the authors choose, or be
forced to develop their own plugins.

Keary Suska
Esoteritech, Inc.
"Leveraging Open Source for a better Internet"

______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List                    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to