On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 14:14 +0100, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
> The problem of adding fields to SSL_CTX and SSL has been mentioned by a
> number of people before. How bad is that in practice? SSL_CTX and SSL
> structures are both allocated dynamically so the size change wont
> matter. The only remaining case is applications that access the fields
> directly instead of using APIs.
>
> We should and will make the SSL and SSL_CTX structures opaque at some
> point but not during a beta release cycle ;-)
As for the ABI breakage I think it would be minimal if the additional
fields were added to the end of the struct. I do not expect that offsets
of the other fields would change on any reasonable C ABIs. As the
structures should never be allocated directly by the application I think
this breakage could be tolerated in beta.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [email protected]
Automated List Manager [email protected]
