Re: SSL Support in .NET Client

[Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>]

Tomas,

The license looks like a BSD license to me
(http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php)

Which is an acceptable license

http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html

-- 
Martin

On 31/01/07, Tomas Restrepo <to...@devdeo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rupert,
>
> > I think we are going to need to continue to support 1.1, as there are
> > existing projects using it.
>
> That's fine, that's why I suggested an alternative library to support SSL on
> v1.1, but someone should definitely check if there would be any licensing
> issues there.
>
> What do you think about the rest of the proposal? Any comments?
>
>
> Tomas Restrepo
> tomas.restrepo@devdeo.com
> http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/

RE: SSL Support in .NET Client

[Tomas Restrepo <to...@devdeo.com>]

Hi Rupert,

> I didn't really read through your entire post fully yesterday so all I had
> to say was the essential thing about retaining 1.1 support. I produced
> a 1.1release a few days ago, I was a little nervous that something
> might have
> changed to prevent it working but it really was a no brainer. If you
> haven't
> already can I suggest that you install 1.1 and MSBee and run the
> build-dotnet11 script now and again to keep a check on continued
> 1.1compatability?

I actually do have msbee installed and run it every now and then. I'm a bit
surprised the build broke last time because I was sure that I had tested it
before submitting my previous patches!

In fact, that's the reason we have a few extra warnings during build from
stuff marked obsolete in v2.0 from my latest changes, as well as a few other
things I did specifically to support v1.1 (like writing my own MD5 HMAC
implementation, since v1.1 doesn't have one).

I'll be a bit more careful next time to ensure I don't break the v1.1 build
next time...


Tomas Restrepo
tomas.restrepo@devdeo.com
http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/

Re: SSL Support in .NET Client

[Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>]

It didn't break; I was just worried it might. So well done, your previous
changes were carefully done to avoid breaking it.

On 2/1/07, Tomas Restrepo <to...@devdeo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rupert,
>
> > I didn't really read through your entire post fully yesterday so all I
> had
> > to say was the essential thing about retaining 1.1 support. I produced
> > a 1.1release a few days ago, I was a little nervous that something
> > might have
> > changed to prevent it working but it really was a no brainer. If you
> > haven't
> > already can I suggest that you install 1.1 and MSBee and run the
> > build-dotnet11 script now and again to keep a check on continued
> > 1.1compatability?
>
> I actually do have msbee installed and run it every now and then. I'm a
> bit
> surprised the build broke last time because I was sure that I had tested
> it
> before submitting my previous patches!
>
> In fact, that's the reason we have a few extra warnings during build from
> stuff marked obsolete in v2.0 from my latest changes, as well as a few
> other
> things I did specifically to support v1.1 (like writing my own MD5 HMAC
> implementation, since v1.1 doesn't have one).
>
> I'll be a bit more careful next time to ensure I don't break the v1.1build
> next time...
>
>
> Tomas Restrepo
> tomas.restrepo@devdeo.com
> http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: SSL Support in .NET Client

[Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>]

I didn't really read through your entire post fully yesterday so all I had
to say was the essential thing about retaining 1.1 support. I produced
a 1.1release a few days ago, I was a little nervous that something
might have
changed to prevent it working but it really was a no brainer. If you haven't
already can I suggest that you install 1.1 and MSBee and run the
build-dotnet11 script now and again to keep a check on continued
1.1compatability?

Your rough draft of changes looks sound enough to me. Bear in mind that I'm
not totally familiar with this code. From what I've seen so far you are
applying sensible refactorings and improving the code comments as you go
which can only be a good thing.

Rupert

On 2/1/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Tomas,
>
> The license looks like a BSD license to me
> (http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php)
>
> Which is an acceptable license
>
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>
> --
> Martin
>
> On 31/01/07, Tomas Restrepo <to...@devdeo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rupert,
> >
> > > I think we are going to need to continue to support 1.1, as there are
> > > existing projects using it.
> >
> > That's fine, that's why I suggested an alternative library to support
> SSL on
> > v1.1, but someone should definitely check if there would be any
> licensing
> > issues there.
> >
> > What do you think about the rest of the proposal? Any comments?
> >
> >
> > Tomas Restrepo
> > tomas.restrepo@devdeo.com
> > http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/
>