David Landgren wrote:
Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Austin Schutz wrote:
Why not just add the functionality to Net::FTP? Or you could
subclass Net::FTP and call it something clever like
Net::FTP::TLS.
...
I'd still favour going with the name Net::FTP::TLS, even if it isn't
subclassed from Net::FTP. If the redesign ever comes down the pipe,
you could reimplement by subclassing and keep the interface the
same? I think that people will look for Net::FTP and drill down, not
go up from Net::FTP and do a breadth-first search in the CPAN
namespace.
Net::FTP::TLS++.
And later just add a start_tls when Net::FTP is redesigned.
Or do you foresee that it might also be possible to write
Net::TLS::SMTP, Net::TLS::LDAP, Net::TLS::Foomatic?
No, as you can put any protocol in a TLS/SSL tunnel, you should keep
Net::FTP::TLS.
SSL is just a transport as TCP or SSH.
TLS is an extension for protocols as a mean to switch to
encrypted mode (SSL) on the same TCP connection as the non encrypted
one. TLS extensions are not always available for all protocols.
Oh, and there's already a Net::LDAPS module (in perl-ldap), and
Net::LDAP objects also have a start_tls method which works differently
than Net::LDAPS ones.
Regards,
J.
--
$A+=3%2?1:0
Jérôme Fenal
jfenalml at free point fr
http://fenal.org/
