Thanks very much for testing and committing, Rowan and Bryan! Hopefully with this now in-tree, it will get used, tested, and improved by others.
-Kevin On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Kerr, Rowan <[email protected]> wrote: > Looks like it made it into trunk now. Sweet! > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-151 > >>> Bryan Duxbury added a comment - 22/Feb/11 18:12 >>> New version works for me, so I committed it. Thanks all who contributed! > > > > On 2011-02-19, at 6:34 PM, Kevin Worth wrote: > >> I'm interested in the current status on this as well (at least SSL/TLS >> Sockets, no interest in HTTP). JIRA appears to have an issue/feature >> for C++ SSL Sockets (THRIFT-151) that has been listed for quite some >> time. I updated Ping Li's (appears he was a FB employee) "redesigned" >> patch file and it indeed seems to work on the 0.6.0 release. It would >> be great to see this get worked on for next release, as there appears >> to be some interested parties out there and available, working code >> (though maybe needs a little more work before commit, I'm no C++ >> expert). >> >> Overall I would love to see support for SSL sockets (presently it's >> only in Java and JS). Some of them (i.e. Python) are fairly trivial (I >> wrote a simple implementation, on JIRA as THRIFT-1068) and offering a >> secure transport may really help Thrift's adoption- I don't know about >> you, but RPC without encryption/authentication seems pretty dangerous >> in anything but an already-trusted environment! >> >> -Kevin >> >> ----------- >> >> From: "Kerr, Rowan" >> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:12:26 -0800 >> Subject: C++ SSL / HTTPS Client >> Thread-Topic: C++ SSL / HTTPS Client >> Thread-Index: AcvHqvqXn8E8T5KbTmq40UIh8JLTdQ== >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> >> Want to make Thrift calls over HTTPS and prefer using the C++ library. >> >> I see that SSL support for C++ is on the roadmap but not marked as planned = >> for any specific version. >> http://wiki.apache.org/thrift/LibraryFeatures >> >> Is anyone currently working on this? >> > >
