On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 07:28:03PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
It should be possible to implement something close to what you
describe at URL http://www.kegel.com/ssl/api.html on top of the
current SSL API with new SSL_get_error return values addeed, using
either a BIO pair or memory BIOs.
But
At 09:21 PM 11/15/00 -0800, Dan wrote:
My API proposal was meant to generate discussion. I realize it's not an
especially practical direction to move OpenSSL in. Does the idea of
an event-driven SSL API appeal to anybody, at least in the abstract?
Yes.
Geoff Thorpe wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Dan Kegel wrote:
I don't think we need nonblocking crypto; it would be enough to be able
to shunt the crypto off into another thread. That's what my API proposal
was about.
I think that misses the entire point of why a form of async public-key
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 07:16:39PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
Nonblocking network I/O is tricky with the current API, but doable.
I've got working code for that, and there are good examples now.
Nonblocking crypto is another matter; it would be a real pain, and
there are no examples showing
Bodo Moeller wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 07:16:39PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
Nonblocking network I/O is tricky with the current API, but doable.
I've got working code for that, and there are good examples now.
Nonblocking crypto is another matter; it would be a real pain, and
there are
I don't think we need nonblocking crypto; it would be enough to be able
to shunt the crypto off into another thread. That's what my API proposal
was about.
Insufficient for hardware crypto devices.
__
OpenSSL Project
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Dan Kegel wrote:
I don't think we need nonblocking crypto; it would be enough to be able
to shunt the crypto off into another thread. That's what my API proposal
was about.
I think that misses the entire point of why a form of async public-key
crypto might be
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
From: Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dank BIO's should have been a well-separated layer, not an integral
dank part of OpenSSL.
I'm not sure I understand that argument. BIO's *are* separate, in
their own "module", if you wish to express it that way.
