At 10:26 09.06.99 +0100, you wrote:
>Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
>>
>I think 3 is too disgusting to contemplate. 1 is OK with me: we
>regularly break all existing code, anyway (speaking of which, I tried to
>get demos/selfsign.c going the other day, but X509v3 support has changed
>so drastically I couldn't easily figure out how!). If you are concerned
>about existing code, then I'd vote for 2, but I'm not hugely keen on the
>precedent or the bloat.
>
>The other possibility I can think of is to add an "extra data" pointer
>to EVP_PKEY instead.
But this way you couldn't do
PKey = PEM_read_PrivateKey(fp,NULL,cb)
and let PEM_read_PrivateKey() handle the allocation for you
By
Goetz
--
Goetz Babin-Ebell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TC Trust Center for Security http://www.trustcenter.de
in Data Networks GmbH Tel.: +49-40-766 29 3301
Am Werder 1 / 21073 Hamburg / Germany Fax.: +49-40-766 29 577
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
