Thanks Sven!
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu
wrote:
A patch mechanism ?
That would be cool indeed, although probably not doable in all cases.
On 25 Jun 2014, at 10:23, Norbert Hartl norb...@hartl.name wrote:
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could
I only did it in 3.0
The file out is attached to the slice - it is 100% standalone
On 25 Jun 2014, at 00:45, Norbert Hartl norb...@hartl.name wrote:
thank you, Sven. Did you try this in 3.0, too. I would need it there!
Norbert
Am 25.06.2014 um 00:11 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could install packages from a ticket in the
image? Something like
- get 3.0 image
- fix from issue 12345 and issue 45678 and...
- install own own packages
- deploy
It would be so well documented :)
Norbert
Am 25.06.2014 um 08:47 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe
A patch mechanism ?
That would be cool indeed, although probably not doable in all cases.
On 25 Jun 2014, at 10:23, Norbert Hartl norb...@hartl.name wrote:
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could install packages from a ticket in the
image? Something like
- get 3.0 image
- fix from issue
Hi Jan,
I loaded just the class CFSHA256 and it worked perfectly (I didn't expect
anything else).
I tried some examples from Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sha256#Examples_of_SHA-2_variants):
(CFSHA256 hashMessage: 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog') hex.
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13395/Add-SHA256-HashFunction
cleaned up, documented, properly packaged.
Passes some test vectors.
I changed the handling of the empty stream.
On 24 Jun 2014, at 23:03, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu wrote:
Hi Jan,
I loaded just the class CFSHA256 and
thank you, Sven. Did you try this in 3.0, too. I would need it there!
Norbert
Am 25.06.2014 um 00:11 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu:
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/13395/Add-SHA256-HashFunction
cleaned up, documented, properly packaged.
Passes some test vectors.
I
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:
OK, thanks, I will have a look.
On 20 Jun 2014, at 10:56, 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
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
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]
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
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) ?
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)
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
