Re: svn commit: r890580 - in /apr/apr-util/branches/1.4.x: crypto/apr_crypto.c crypto/apr_crypto_nss.c crypto/apr_crypto_openssl.c include/apr_crypto.h include/private/apr_crypto_internal.h test/testcrypto.c

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 1/21/2010 6:03 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> 
> Waiting is entirely reasonable, as there is definite merit in ensuring v1.x is done as
> right as humanly possible.

We've been waiting a long time.  I haven't had cycles to invest, won't until some
time early next year at best.

I'd just like to poll the group to find out who's invested time in reviewing the
crypto API's and considers them release-worthy for the rest of 1.x's lifetime
(which gstein promises will be eternity in svn-land :)

Or has a review halfway completed, and intends to post comments sometime in the
near-ish future?

Re: svn commit: r890580 - in /apr/apr-util/branches/1.4.x: crypto/apr_crypto.c crypto/apr_crypto_nss.c crypto/apr_crypto_openssl.c include/apr_crypto.h include/private/apr_crypto_internal.h test/testcrypto.c

[Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>]

On 30 Nov 2010, at 4:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> As part of my push to get httpd 2.4 out the door, this is a
> major factor, so I plan on completing my review of the crypto
> API RSN.

Thanks for this.

The code has both a test suite, and a first implementation  
(mod_session_crypto.c).

A key part of the API, which has been misunderstood in the past, is  
the desire to be able to pre-initialise something (eg within httpd  
startup), and then use that pre-initialised state later (eg at httpd  
request time). The need for this may have not been clear when just  
looking at the API.

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: svn commit: r890580 - in /apr/apr-util/branches/1.4.x: crypto/apr_crypto.c crypto/apr_crypto_nss.c crypto/apr_crypto_openssl.c include/apr_crypto.h include/private/apr_crypto_internal.h test/testcrypto.c

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Nov 29, 2010, at 4:58 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 1/21/2010 6:03 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>> 
>> Waiting is entirely reasonable, as there is definite merit in ensuring v1.x is done as
>> right as humanly possible.
> 
> We've been waiting a long time.  I haven't had cycles to invest, won't until some
> time early next year at best.
> 
> I'd just like to poll the group to find out who's invested time in reviewing the
> crypto API's and considers them release-worthy for the rest of 1.x's lifetime
> (which gstein promises will be eternity in svn-land :)
> 
> Or has a review halfway completed, and intends to post comments sometime in the
> near-ish future?
> 

As part of my push to get httpd 2.4 out the door, this is a
major factor, so I plan on completing my review of the crypto
API RSN.