* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Keep in mind it took years to get OpenSSL support up to the level we > > have it now. It took SSL experts coming in and out of our development > > process to get it 100% feature-complete. > > Actually, it's *not* feature-complete even yet. > > What basically bothers me about this is that trying to support both the > OpenSSL and GNUTLS APIs is going to be an enormous investment of > development and maintenance effort, because it's such a nontrivial thing > to use properly. It sticks in my craw to be doing that work for no > technical reason, only a license-lawyering reason; and not even a > license issue that everyone is convinced is real.
The development has been done (and wasn't terribly enormous aiui) and I
have a hard time believeing it's a huge maintenance cost. If features
are added wrt SSL they wouldn't have to be added to both, either,
although in general I doubt it'd be all that difficult to support both
from the get-go but there's no obligataion and someone else who cares
about one or the other could implement it there.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
