>
>I'm very much in favour of this. One comment, though - if you're going
>to make structure opaque, then why not make them truly opaque  by
>removing their definitions from the public headers?

In LSB they would be truly opaque.  LSB works by producing a set of stub
libraries and generated headers that contain the defined interfaces.  In
those generated headers, the types would be opaque.  These stub libs and
headers however are only used by applications attempting to build with
the LSB environment, the real openssl remains unchanged and is utilized
at runtime.  I don't really see changing all of openssl directly as a
reasonable solution however since a vast mountain of software is already
written with those structures defined.

Tracy Camp

>
>
>-- 
>http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html           http://www.links.org/
>
>"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
>doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
>______________________________________________________________________
>OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
>Development Mailing List                       openssl-dev@openssl.org
>Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List                       openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to