David Corcoran wrote: > > Hello, > > Not to sound defensive, but I think (by bias) that this client side > architecture is good for writing fast plug-ins. If the plugin level is at > the PKCS-11 layer which it might be as well there is too much overhead for > just a smartcard and each card driver shares much of the same certificate > managing code with other drivers. >
I wasn't suggesting you should use PKCS#11 as the plugin level. Indeed it would be quite an overhead and probably wouldn't be as flexible in any case. Hmm that makes me curious as to how you'll be handling PKCS#11... My reference to PKCS#11 was to George Staikos as to how KDE 3.0 could handle smart cards or smart card like devices. If the KDE stuff can talk PKCS#11 then it could talk to gpkcs-11 (and Musclecard as a result) and a whole load of other things besides. 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. *************************************************************** Unix Smart Card Developers - M.U.S.C.L.E. (Movement for the Use of Smart Cards in a Linux Environment) http://www.linuxnet.com/ To unsubscribe send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe sclinux ***************************************************************
