Markus Friedl wrote: > > > There could be more problems with other XXX_Init() or similar > functions, so all semantic changes to functions from the 0.9.6 API > should be reconsidered. All such changes could be a threat to existing > applications and break them in subtle ways -- and this must be > avoided. >
The aim of the API changes was to retain compatibility with existing code, there may be some places where it doesn't which need to be addressed. > > As to EVP_CipherInit(): I think EVP_CipherInit should not cause > EVP_CipherInit_ex() to look for an engine, as this deviates from the > 0.9.6 behaviour. Perhaps is better to pass 'engine==NO_ENGINE', > instead of 'engine==NULL' to EVP_CipherInit_ex(). > The aim of this was to allow the EVP_XXX functions to be able to use a replacement default implementation without needing to rewrite existing code. If no default implementation is loaded it should retain the 0.9.6 behaviour. Steve. -- Dr Stephen N. Henson. http://www.drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk/ Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior crypto engineer, Gemplus: http://www.gemplus.com/ Core developer of the OpenSSL project: http://www.openssl.org/ Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: via homepage. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
