Not so bad idea considering that any C program, with modern compilers,
can be compiled as cpp with no problem.
I am mixing code like this for years with no problem.
Other apps, in other languages, that CAN load dynamic libraries, could
take benefit of "c++ to c lib" technique wrapping such as suggested by
other fellow here.
But of course...this can be painful.
Interprocess communication (between a XXX language program and a C++ SSL
translator) is also a possibility.
Considering stunnel is also a very good solution most of the time:
why reinvent the wheel if one just need to talk SSL over TCP...
Le 09/09/2014 20:42, Iñaki Baz Castillo a écrit :
The (bad) idea of using C++ namespaces was just targered for those
integrating OpenSSL into their own C++ projects.
El 09/09/2014 20:39, "Larry Bugbee" <bug...@seanet.com
<mailto:bug...@seanet.com>> escribió:
In the FWIW column....
Please don't mangle names by forcing C++ namespaces. Some us call
OpenSSL from Python (and other dynamic languages) and depend on
the C naming convention. Adding a "OSSL_" prefix is fine;
mangling creates huge problems.
-- Sent fm iTouch via Boxer
