Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> Dr S N Henson wrote:
> > The idea behind this is that a simple engine aware application could
> > then just call ENGINE_load_config("filename.cnf") and forget about any
> > other details.
>
> The reason I suggested a handle instead of a filename was so that the
> data could come from elsewhere.
>
Well whatever... I was just using that as an example. The whole point is
that if an application writer doesn't want or have time to look into how
ENGINEs work they can make a simple call and some basic functionality
(crypto acceleration for example) is supported.
Arne Ansper wrote:
>
> > The idea behind this is that a simple engine aware application could
> > then just call ENGINE_load_config("filename.cnf") and forget about any
> > other details.
>
> or you can encode the parameters into string and pass this string around.
> file-based configuration is not always the best.
>
No it isn't always the best but having a simple string could get very
messy if lots of information needs to be passed around. Maybe something
a bit like the extension code. You can pass a simple string but if that
isn't sufficient the engine can access other information from the CONF
pointer (which need not refer to a config file).
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. http://www.drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk/
Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior crypto engineer, Celo Communications: http://www.celocom.com/
Core developer of the OpenSSL project: http://www.openssl.org/
Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: via homepage.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
