> Am 20.06.2014 um 17:06 schrieb Jan van de Sandt <jvdsa...@gmail.com>: > > And I think it's a good idea to make SHA2 hash functions part of the > System-Hashing package! > +1
Norbert > >> 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 >
