Giuseppe Castagno wrote:
Hi Joachim,
Joachim Lingner wrote:
Giuseppe Castagno wrote:
Hi all,
...
The idea was to write an extension to sign, but it seems that ATM OOo
lacks the needed stuff, e.g. it doesn't seem possible to sign a
document with a 3rd part signature method.
Thats true. There is currently no way of plugin in a different
mechanismn let alone something to switch between the them.
Actually I found a bunch of services in that area (an example [1]),
but almost all are tagged as 'unpublished'.
True.
'unpublished' because not supported or what?
unpublished interfaces can be changed, removed at any time. So if you
write an extension you should use always published ones.
Are there any plan to implement this in 3.x codeline?
No, afaik.
I see, lack of resources or some other reason?
Well, you are the first to ask for such a "pluggable signature
framework" AFAIK. Given that it is a useful feature, and I think it is,
there is still the question of who is going to do it. In that sense it
is always a question of priority and resources.
There is also the problem that the GUI code is mixed up "signing
logic". This needs to be separated.
One could also think of an options page where the user could select
different signing methods. However, there is nothing planned yet.
I had a look to the code stuff. It seems all inside xmlsec module.
If I have specific questions to the current code, is there a dedicated
ML to ask for?
Please ask on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Joachim
Giuseppe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
