Should I post OpenSSL's API description here? And compare to existing Pike stuff? Tell what I need and what I miss?
Yes, please do tell what functionality it is you need.
While _current_ Pike's source (no offence) is still (sometimes) very hairy and dirty :)
No it isn't. I find Niels code overly object oriented, but not at all hairy and definately not dirty.
Presence of all popular (and standard) hashing functions and ciphers, for instance. Again - should I compare function-by-function Pike and OpenSSL APIs concerning crypto stuff?
As I said, if you are missing functionality, state what it is.
/ Peter Bortas
Previous text:
2003-01-28 08:29: Subject: Re: OpenSSL wrapper vs Pike's SSL (Was: Bz2)
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:45:02AM +0100, Peter Bortas @ Pike developers forum wrote:
SSL has been stable for years now. Far longer than OpenSSL has been stable or even existing.
_Now_ the situation is a bit different, isn't? I agree that in the past it was better (perhaps), but since then many things are changed.
I want to hear what is better in OpenSSL, not some general fuzzy feelings about going with the flow.
Should I post OpenSSL's API description here? And compare to existing Pike stuff? Tell what I need and what I miss?
Last time I checked the proto-OpenSSL code - several years ago mind you -
Serveral _years_. While _current_ Pike's source (no offence) is still (sometimes) very hairy and dirty :)
OpenSSL is faster than Pikes SSL module. That is known. I want to know about other differances in OpenSSLs advantage.
Presence of all popular (and standard) hashing functions and ciphers, for instance. Again - should I compare function-by-function Pike and OpenSSL APIs concerning crypto stuff?
Regards, /Al
/ Brevbäraren