> For example having 100% managed cryptographic classes would allow (without > too much pain) running cryptographic applications with the .NET Compact > Framework (which doesn't have the System.Security.Cryptography namespace > included in mscorlib.dll).
FWIW, we have simple lightweight XML parser available here: http://mono.eurosoft.od.ua/files/miniparser.tar.gz It can be easily embedded into corlib dll. It works with Mono and it works fine with WinCE/CF (tested with PocketPC2002, HPC2k & CE.NET devices) When compiled it's about 10k of binary code. Parser uses event-based push model with very simple interface. Main limitation: it can't handle mixed contents (shouldn't be a problem for config-file parsing). License is Mono-compatible (see code for details) Sergey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sebastien Pouliot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Piers Haken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "mono-list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 6:01 AM Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Crypto Unit tests on linux > > Well, go ahead, but it still seems brain-dead to be reimplmenting > > something that's already done. The space argument is fatuous - have you > > ever looked at the memory profile of a running mono app? > > No. But I see mono and the class library as two separate entity (which seems > normal as they are licensed differently). > For example having 100% managed cryptographic classes would allow (without > too much pain) running cryptographic applications with the .NET Compact > Framework (which doesn't have the System.Security.Cryptography namespace > included in mscorlib.dll). See > http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/netcf/ApiDocumentation.aspx for what > namespaces/classes are present in the Compact Framework. > > Yet in this case I confess that both using a independant parser or > reflection into System.Xml would yield the same results (and invoking > unmanaged code in the mono runtime wouldn't). However this may not be the > always the case (perhaps customized PocketPC or something totally new). > > > Isn't it better to get this stuff running in the most portable way > > without duplicating whole chunks of effort just to satisfy some far-off > > 1% scenario? > > I agree this isn't a high priority (has we don't have any asymmetric crypto > yet so the abstract class are useless now) but respectfully disagree on the > % ;-) > > Sebastien Pouliot > Security Architect, Motus Technologies, http://www.motus.com/ > work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
