I agree with you concerning sticking with the standard JCE interface, but in
the end I want what works. I feel for you since you have to live with my
code ;-) (until someone does it better), so my tact is facilitate the
transition with the minimal cost to you. If there is anything you need
reworked, just let me know.

Once we all agree it is production quality, I'm gonna turn around and use
it... call it enlightened self-interest.

Cheers and thanks again,


-----Original Message-----
From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: Encryption

Patrick C. Lankswert wrote:
> Add jce-jdk13-118.jar (for 1.3.x) to %JAVA_HOME%\jre\lib\ext and add
> security.provider.6=org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider
> to %JAVA_HOME%\jre\lib\security\java.security in the appropriate section.
> This should work. This is how it is done to support any implementation.

Thank you, I already discovered this myself last night. It was just
that shutting down the work environment in order to re-login as
Administrator for changing java.security at 2:10am isn't worth
it, so I decided to go to bed.

Now everything runs well and is already committed to the maintenance
branch, I'll update the docs and HEAD later.

> IF you would like it HARD CODED to bouncy castle's implementation which
> not require the java.security changes,
It's probably a bad idea to tie FOP to a specific provider. In
particular as Mozilla also has an Open Source implementation,
which is perhaps even faster due to native code (anybody ready
to try it?)


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to