Sure. I cannot recall if I offered a stream interface or not. I could add
one and we could treat this and the SqueakSSL stream as provider impl to a
wrapper stream.
I'll comment more as I dig into it. I think I will fork a PharoSSL project,
since I know of at least one change in there.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Sven Van Caekenberghe
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:53 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project]
SSL/HTTPS -SecureSocketStream/SSLSessionforPharo/Squeak and otherSmalltalk
implementations
Rob,
On 12 May 2011, at 16:38, Rob Withers wrote:
It is a complete implementation with the bare minimum of supported
algorithms, based on the spec. It is 100% in Smalltalk. It worked last
time I tested in, several years ago. I will be able to tell you more this
weekend. Others have been adding fixes/small features since, but not a
lot - the base is pretty solid. I painstakingly followed the RFC for
SSL - I think I read it over 20 times! The only issue would be algorithm
support. I never benchmarked it, but seeing the difference in performance
between Smlltalk crypto code like 3DES and plugin code, there is a
SIGNIFICANT improvement (10x?). I do not know the state of Profiling
under Pharo. If someone could help set me up, then I will profile it this
weekend. I imagine both performance and certification were the reasons
for SqueakSSL.
There is also an SSH implementation I wrote that does dynamic window
resizing on net latency.
It would be *very cool* if that code base could be ported to Pharo.
It is really quite impressive that you did all this from the spec.
I think that it would be possible to adjust my plan a bit, so that
eventually, my code would use either the native plugin or your Smalltalk
implementation. Then, we can compare features, functionality, bugs, etc..
Does that sound like a good idea ?
Sven
