> In my mind, the naming should somehow reflect the aim of the project > (which is something that also seems to be less than clear to me in > the proposal).
Make Java xmlsec usable for high-volume deployments. It's currently not, and hardware acceleration for Java is hard to get for some platforms, and expensive. OpenSSL is free, and has cheap hardware acceleration for many platforms. > What's the long term plan? That's up to you folks. For our purposes, RSA and SHA1 solve the immediate problem. > 1. just sticking to those (which might be justified since these are the > most used and the most expensive part of the operation) ? > 2. full jce implementation? > 3. full interface to openssl? > 4. something entirely different? I don't think a full interface to OpenSSL is likely, but my guess is #2 is probably what the ASF side has in mind. At least enough to implement the mandatory pieces of dsig and xmlenc. > If it is either 2 or 3, then I'd say that either jce or openssl should > be part of the name (using openssl as part of the name might be a problem, > but I'm sure Ben Laurie could help with that). I think the point of Juice was that JCE were in the name...sounds like there's another project with a similar name though. -- Scott
