[guest - Thu Oct 6 11:55:10 2005]: > I notice that the chil engine in 0.9.8 has had the hack which allows > it to work with static locks removed.
That is correct. The reason is exactly what you said; it's a hack, and it was *meant* to be temporary, to allow for a smooth move from the 0.9. 6 engine architecture (where that hack originated) to the proper way (dynamic locks, which were first implemented in 0.9.7). We can't keep creating static hacks for things that may or may not be in OpenSSL for various reasons, and engines are such objects. > This stops our engine working with the openssl application (as it > registers a lock debugging callback) and Apache 2.x (and other apps > too no doubt) That's because those applications don't set up callbacks for the dynamic locks. The correct thing to do is to talk with the application authors and tell them that there are new requirements to make engines work. > Would it be possible to put the hack back in for the next release? I think that would be a bad idea, generally speaking. > or is there something else that we could do instead to allow our > engine to work with static locks? It seems that the dynamic locks > are rarely used. Yes, it's true, they are rarely use... currently. However, I really would encourage people to use them more, as they are a bit more flexible than the static locks. Ideally, OpenSSL should probably move to dynamic locks entirely, which would make maintainance quite a bit easier. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
