-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26013/#review54534
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


One caveat: it appears as if there's a lot of code duplicated between the 
openssl.c and schannel.c.  Just for maintenance's sake, would it be possible to 
put the common code into a common file and better abstract the boundary between 
the two implementations?

Probably a lot of work - something to postpone until after 0.8 IMHO

- Kenneth Giusti


On Sept. 25, 2014, 1:39 a.m., Cliff Jansen wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/26013/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 25, 2014, 1:39 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for qpid and Kenneth Giusti.
> 
> 
> Bugs: PROTON-581
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-581
> 
> 
> Repository: qpid
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This patch does simple client side TLS only. No server support yet, and no 
> client certificates.  Full functionality will come in the Proton 0.9 
> timeframe.  This SChannel implementation can be used to communicate with a 
> qpidd broker with AMQP 1.0 support and with the Azure Service Bus.
> 
> It is based on Proton's openssl.c for basic structure and Qpid's 
> SslAsynchIO.cpp for the SChannel bits. It has minor improvements over the 
> latter with the ability to send and detect shutdown alerts, catch additional 
> continuation record cases, and use DeleteSecurityContext() on teardown.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/proton/trunk/proton-c/CMakeLists.txt 
> 1627442 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/proton/trunk/proton-c/src/windows/schannel.c
>  PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/26013/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tested against qpidd and Azure Service Bus
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cliff Jansen
> 
>

Reply via email to