On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 19:01 +1000, Brett Porter wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > robert burrell donkin wrote: > > > > >openPGP is the name used for a group of RFC's inspired by pretty good > >privacy. http://www.openpgp.org/ is an association of implementors > >promoting the use of this standard (which is probably the source of the > >confusion). http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2440.txt is the RFC in question > >and covers a message format. it included implementation details as well > >as specification (which is another source for the confusion). > > ok, so commons-openpgp would be ok. I'm still thinking commons-crypto is > a good name, but I'll be happy with either. It can always be changed > later when it is expanded I guess.
IMHO commons-openpgp gives a very nice, tightly focused well-named component with a clean concrete aim (an openPGP implementation). no baggage, no arguments later about scope. if the requirements expand, then it's time to create another small component (or two). commons-crypto sounds good but maybe that's a name for tomorrow... > >>maybe it'd be possible to get enough momentum to think about aiming for > >a jakarta-crypto in the medium term followed by an apache-crypto project > >one day... > > LOL... I hope this has a fair bit of tongue in cheek :) yep :) > It's good to > have a long term goal, but I'm not getting that carried away just yet. hehehe > As far as I understand, we're only aiming for something that wraps > bouncycastle and/org cryptix (which, at least in BC's case from my > experience, already does the crypto stuff very well) that is at a > higher level and isolated from the provider's own API. We're just > signing some deployments here, for now :) +1 - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
