This way we could avoid having the James administrator edit the java.security file, as we could add the provider programmatically in our code.
Anyhow a problem exists: the Bouncy Castle jars are different, based on the JRE release, and I don't know if they are upward compatible. JRE 1.3 requires even an extra jar and is *not* upward compatible - another reason to get rid of 1.3 support in James ;-). Vincenzo > -----Original Message----- > From: Serge Knystautas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: giovedi 1 luglio 2004 18.55 > To: James Users List > Subject: Re: James SSL support, Mozilla and missing cryptographic > algorithms > > > Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote: > > What about putting such provider (I suggest Bouncy Castle) in the standard James > > install? > > From my reading of the license > (http://www.bouncycastle.org/license.html), I see no reason we couldn't > bundle it. Basically seems like completely unrestricted, just need to > include the notice. > > -- > Serge Knystautas > Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com > p. 301.656.5501 > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
