Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
> Bodo_Moeller> > Please find attached a patch against openssl-SNAP-19990718
> Bodo_Moeller> > which modifies the pem/* stuff to take an extra
> Bodo_Moeller> > argument of type void* to all the functions which use
> Bodo_Moeller> > a password callback. It also modifies the apps/* to
> Bodo_Moeller> > use the new interface.
> Bodo_Moeller> >
> Bodo_Moeller> > I haven't added backwards compatability functions, but
> Bodo_Moeller> > I am happy to do so if required.
> Bodo_Moeller>
> Bodo_Moeller> Last time this came up, there was a suggestion to name
> Bodo_Moeller> the new functions <whatever>_ex, because otherwise
> Bodo_Moeller> adding backwards compatibility is hard to do: You cannot
> [...]
>
> Bodo_Moeller> So, is backwards compatibility an important issue here
> Bodo_Moeller> and is it worth this kind of evil hack, or should we
> Bodo_Moeller> just add the parameters?
>
> Backward compatibility is an important issue. Think "dynamic
> library".
I believe structures have changed and all sorts of other things that
will break dynamic libraries, anyway.
The current structure of OpenSSL does not lend itself to binary
compatibility at all (think "lots of macros accessing structures
directly").
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
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
