* Nadav Har'El ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > The ideal thing for openssl would be to wait until we have a good
> > opportunity to well and truly ignore backwards compatibility and then
> > just uproot the entire caching interface and replace it with something
>
> I understand that backward compatibility is important, if people rely on
> the current behaviour. In this case, I suggest that the manual pages (in this
> case, of SSL_CTX_free()) be updated to explain what actually happens, and
> perhaps how to get the other behaviour. Nobody can complain about this if
> it is explained in the manual :)
As someone who now has an excellent working familiarity with the API
behaviour, I am sure any patches ("diff -u" format) you were to
contribute in this direction would be most warmly welcomed :-)
Cheers,
Geoff
--
Geoff Thorpe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.openssl.org/
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
