> While waiting for these details to be worked out, I had to get going on my
> application, and the quick hack I did was just what you propose, with the
> minor difference of using type "void *". It worked well enough to keep me
> going, but on reflection I'm convinced it would lead to a more unified
> solution if an SSL_CTX were passed instead of an anonymous pointer.
I'm sure that your structured approach is cleaner, but it wouldn't help my
C++ wrappers if I couldn't use the app_data to identify my C++ object.
The point I'm making is that there may be objects associated with a request
which cannot be known to the library, and app_data is the accepted way of
supporting such associations.
------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Heath http://www.osa.com.au/~cjh
Open Software Associates Limited mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
29 Ringwood Street / PO Box 4414 Phone +613 9871 1694
Ringwood VIC 3134 AUSTRALIA Fax +613 9871 1711
------------------------------------------------------------
Proven Solution Deployment for the Global Enterprise
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
