On Feb 1, 2010, at 18:54 , Viktor TARASOV wrote: > Martin Paljak wrote: >> On Feb 1, 2010, at 17:07 , Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: >> >>> Am Montag 01 Februar 2010 15:10:05 schrieb Viktor TARASOV: >>> >>> fine with me. >>> >>> btw: if you need to touch pkcs11/ for that, maybe you know the >>> code best: IIRC there are several frameworks (so that in theory >>> we could implement alternatives to pkcs#15). maybe that option >>> is no longer interesting and can go. but I'm no expert on that, >>> it seems so far we have a "pkcs15" and a "pkcs15init" implementation >>> of that framework structure, so no idea if we can simplify the >>> code there or not. >>> >> >> In real life the two frameworks are deeply interconnected and >> interdependent for now. >> > > Do you mean two frameworks in pkcs11: 'framework-pkcs15' and > 'framework-pkcs15init' ? > Do we really use the second one? Maybe a consolidation can be done here as well: sc_pkcs15_bind sc_pkcs15_bind_synthetic sc_pkcs15_unbind sc_pkcs15init_bind sc_pkcs15init_unbind
Two separate frameworks in the pkcs#11 module, as they exist now, don't make sense (separate pkcs15init and pkcs15) the same way separated pkcs15init library did not do any good. At the same time having a pluggable codebase in the PKCS#11 module would be beneficial, for example to be able to easily create a PKCS#11 module for a card that does not implement a filesystem and where emulating it in a card driver would not make sense either. -- Martin Paljak http://martin.paljak.pri.ee +3725156495 _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
