In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:00:17 +0100, "Dr. Stephen
Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
steve> The other is that its equivalent to EVP_CipherUpdate() and
steve> EVP_CipherFinal() which can output data in arbitrary sizes
steve> whereas our stuff will never be more than one
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:37:19 +0100, "Dr.
> Stephen Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> steve> As for incompatible chanhes there is one nasty incompatibility
> steve> with PKCS#11 which EVP might have to
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:37:19 +0100, "Dr. Stephen
Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
steve> As for incompatible chanhes there is one nasty incompatibility
steve> with PKCS#11 which EVP might have to address if we ever need a
steve> full PKCS#11 ENGINE. Even that though
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005, Pradosh Adoni wrote:
> > pradosh.adoni> for eg. Of the current list of interfaces which ones
> > pradosh.adoni> are most definitely going to be deprecated in future
> > pradosh.adoni> versions ?
> >
> > For the longest time, we have recommended to use the EVP interface
> > ra
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:45:15 +0530, Pradosh Adoni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
pradosh.adoni> so ,would it make more sense to standardize on the EVP
pradosh.adoni> interface as opposed to the lower level functions ?
pradosh.adoni> This would force developers seeking LSB
On 10/27/05, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:49:53 +0530, Pradosh
> Adoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> pradosh.adoni> though it has been fairly established that the
> pradosh.adoni> resulting ABI will in all probabil
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:01:23 -0400, Johnny Lam
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
jlam> What makes you think that the OpenSSL developers will go to the
jlam> trouble to do all this major surgery to their codebase when they
jlam> won't d
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:01:23 -0400, Johnny Lam
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
jlam> What makes you think that the OpenSSL developers will go to the
jlam> trouble to do all this major surgery to their codebase when they
jlam> won't do the very simple thing of just properl
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:49:53 +0530, Pradosh
Adoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
pradosh.adoni> though it has been fairly established that the
pradosh.adoni> resulting ABI will in all probabilty break in
pradosh.adoni> forthcoming (major) versions, It would be good to kn
Pradosh Adoni wrote:
(I had sent this mail earlier, but it didn't seem to make it to the list )
Carrying forward from earlier discussion threads which I have linked
here for reference -
http://www.mail-archive.com/openssl-dev@openssl.org/msg19662.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/openssl-dev@op
10 matches
Mail list logo
