The reason is "legacy". Eric Young was not conscious of namespace pollution when he implemented SSLeay; since then, even after the migration to the OpenSSL name and team, the focus has been more on maintaining source compatibility than in creating new interoperability opportunities.
To meet the goal of interoperability while enabling an alternate symbolic namespace, what would you suggest? -Kyle H On September 7, 2014 1:30:11 PM PST, "Iñaki Baz Castillo" <i...@aliax.net> wrote: >Hi, > >RAND_xxx >CRYPTO_xxx >ERR_xxx >ENGINE_xxx >EVP_xxx >sk_xxx >X509_xxx >BIGNUM_xxx >RSA_xxx >BN_xxx >ASN1_xxx >EC_xxx > >etc etc etc. > >May I understand why it was decided that OpenSSL can own all the >prefixes or "namespaces" in the world? How is it possible that OpenSSL >owns the ERR_ prefix (for example ERR_free_strings() and others)? > >OpenSSL is a library. I should be able to integrate OpenSSL into my >own code and define my own prefixes without worrying about creating >conflicts with the near 200 prefixes that OpenSSL owns. > > >An example of a well designed C library is libuv [*], in which: > >* Public API functions and structs begin with uv_. >* Private API functions begin with uv__. >* Public macros begin UV_. > >That's a good design! > > >PS: In my project I use both openssl and libsrtp. In which of them do >you expect the following macro is defined?: > > SRTP_PROTECTION_PROFILE > > > > >[*] https://github.com/joyent/libuv/ > > >-- >Iñaki Baz Castillo ><i...@aliax.net> >______________________________________________________________________ >OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org >User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org >Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
