On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 04:52:33PM +0400, George Hazan wrote: > Hello, Justin! > Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:04:56 -0800 you wrote: > > JK> As far as I know, the GnuPG developers intentially don't provide a DLL > JK> form of the program. This is why even GPGME (GnuPG Made Easy, the > JK> official library for apps to use) calls gpg.exe behind the scenes. > > Yep, probably because that EXE should be completely rewritten to allow to > use the existing code as DLL.. For example, right now it uses global > varibles instead of context structures. That's why I was looking for a > brave guy :=) > > JK> Having GnuPG in "DLL" form would only save you the time to load GnuPG > JK> into memory, which is probably not where your cpu cycles are going. > > I have an expirience in working with the standard PGP SDK, it's lightning > fast if you have the properly initialized context. And programs like JAJC > also have no problems with PGP SDK based encryption. > > JK> How fast is your computer? Encrypting a GnuPG message for Psi is on > JK> average faster than the rate someone would chat, I think. > > Unfortunately Miranda is very popular among the Win95 users, who launch it > on PII/233 machines with 64M RAM :) For these users launching a quite fat > EXE on every message is a mess (sorry for a tautology :) > > Even on a PIV/2800 with 1GB RAM it takes about 200-300 msec to launch the > gnupg.exe and process its result. Such a delay itself is a mess for a user > who can type quickly. >
Than the system (windows) should be rewritten, not the program. The same program on my linux box (1300MHz duron, 384 dimm am) is imediate(~ 10 ms), so there is a problem somewhere else. -- NAT should extinkt like dinosaurs did. Michal "vorner" Vaner
pgp6mawdKeEAz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
