Maybe when Mono (the Open-Source version of .NET) is available? OpenSSL is primarily for UNIX systems, which at present have no .NET support. So making a .NET port sounds about like making a Java port, from this description.
I guess Microsoft, fresh from the black eye over Java, is trying to push this on us. Since they have the market share, they'll probably get away with it too. Linux, anybody? > A .NET port of OpenSSL would require replacing the C style DLL interface > with a .NET Object DLL. The OpenSSL source code would have to be able to > be compiled under the C# (pronounced c sharp) compiler. Microsoft has > just released Visual Studio 7.0. Version 7.0 produces .NET dll's. exe's, > etc. The new framework that is required to execute a .NET component (dll > or exe) is called the common language runtime (CLR). A .NET component > gets just in time compiled (JIT) when it is needed and optimized for the > operating system and hardware it is running under. When future 64 bit > versions of Windows arrive, .NET components will already be 64 bit when > run under the new operating system. > > The C# language is NOT a superset of the C or C++ languages. Porting > OpenSSL would be a real job! > > I believe that most future software development is and will be done as a > .NET component and that if OpenSSL is not ported to it, then OpenSSL will > die the same fate as Windows 3.1 > ______________________________________________________________________ > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
