On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Peter Dettman < peter.dett...@bouncycastle.org> wrote:
> On 25/10/2013 10:55 PM, Jeff Stedfast wrote: > >> The beauty of BouncyCastle's OpenPGP implementation, in my eyes, is that >> it is not tied to 32bit vs 64bit or any particular processor architecture. >> Now, of course, that can all fall apart if it doesn't actually work or if >> it's buggy to the point of not being able to interoperate with gpg and >> other pgp implementations. I don't know if it is or isn't. I suspect it >> works, but if development has stalled and the OpenPGP implementation is >> unmaintained, then it might not be viable because, as other implementations >> mature and/or bugs are found, if they don't get fixed, I'm going to want to >> move into something else. That's part of what I'm hoping to find out. >> > The C# version of OpenPGP is a little out-of-date relative to the Java > version, but most problems you are likely to encounter would likely be > resolved by figuring out what changes need to be ported over. The Java > version has benefited from a lot of field reports of interoperability > issues, so I think/hope you will be somewhat pleasantly surprised. > Awesome. Question: is there a list of what needs to be ported over from the Java side? Jeff > > Pete. > > >
