And I think it's a good idea to make SHA2 hash functions part of the System-Hashing package!
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jan van de Sandt <jvdsa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I added the SHA256 class to Cloudfork a few years ago. The class was > mostly copied from the Cryptography [1] project. > > Cheers, > Jan. > > [1] http://www.squeaksource.com/Cryptography/ > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:56 AM, François Stephany < > tulipe.mouta...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Max, >> >> Yes, it's usable as the SHA1 package already there (without HMAC so). I'm >> no expert in those stuff but I don't get "SHA256 base implementation". >> Someone with more knowledge can probably tell ;) >> >> Sven, >> >> The bare minimum to load it is: >> >> Gofer it >> smalltalkhubUser: 'JanVanDeSandt' project: 'Cloudfork'; >> package: 'Cloudfork-Common'; >> package: 'Cloudfork-Pharo-Platform'; >> load. >> >> The implementation is in Cloudfork-Pharo-Platform. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> >> wrote: >> >>> I want to have a look, if you tell me where to look... >>> >>> On 19 Jun 2014, at 18:03, Max Leske <maxle...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > On 19.06.2014, at 17:59, François Stephany <tulipe.mouta...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Does it make sense from a license point of view and practical point >>> of view to include the CloudFork HMAC-SHA256 implementation (CFSH256 class) >>> in the System-Hashing package (in where there's already SHA1 and MD5) ? >>> > >>> > Can Cloudfork HMAC-SHA256 be easily parameterized with, say, an SHA256 >>> base implementation? Or does it require extra stuff? In the former case I >>> probably wouldn’t add it. In the latter case it’s open for discussion. >>> Personally, I think it belongs into a separate package, not into >>> System-Hashing. >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > Max >>> >>> >>> >> >
