Clifford Heath wrote:
>
> > 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.
Yes it would - as Dan observed, you use ex_data for that kind of thing.
This is actually quite a neat way to do things: I use it heavily in
Apache-SSL.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
