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]
