let's start with at least "jce implementation enough to implement the mandatory pieces of dsig and xmlenc"
-- dims --- Scott Cantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In my mind, the naming should somehow reflect the aim of the project > > (which is something that also seems to be less than clear to me in > > the proposal). > > Make Java xmlsec usable for high-volume deployments. It's currently not, and > hardware acceleration for Java is hard to get for some platforms, and > expensive. OpenSSL is free, and has cheap hardware acceleration for many > platforms. > > > What's the long term plan? > > That's up to you folks. For our purposes, RSA and SHA1 solve the immediate > problem. > > > 1. just sticking to those (which might be justified since these are the > > most used and the most expensive part of the operation) ? > > 2. full jce implementation? > > 3. full interface to openssl? > > 4. something entirely different? > > I don't think a full interface to OpenSSL is likely, but my guess is #2 is > probably what the ASF side has in mind. At least enough to implement the > mandatory pieces of dsig and xmlenc. > > > If it is either 2 or 3, then I'd say that either jce or openssl should > > be part of the name (using openssl as part of the name might be a problem, > > but I'm sure Ben Laurie could help with that). > > I think the point of Juice was that JCE were in the name...sounds like > there's another project with a similar name though. > > -- Scott > ===== Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
