Re: TLS API discussion

Tim,

Tim Hudson wrote:
> 
> According to Christopher Allen:
> > I'm not so hot on the SSLeay API. I'm not sure that I'd be completely happy
> > even if we standardized on the SSLRef 3.0 API (which we wrote). There are
> > just so many platform specific considerations -- SSLRef 3.0 API had to be
> > somewhat of a least common denominator to minimize cross platform issues.
>     Given that SSLeay is used to build applications under the following
> platforms I think that the hint that SSLRef 3.0 API is better because it
> had to deal with cross platform issues is a little wierd.
>     SSLeay builds and runs on the following platforms:
>         - WIN16
>         - WIN32
>         - Unix (pretty much every varient)
>         - VMS
>         - MVS
>         - MacOS
>     It supports blocking and non-blocking I/O on each platform. It is
> thread-safe across WIN32, Unix and VMS (I don't know about the status
> of thread support under MVS and MacOS myself).

  Both MVS and MacOs are supported I believe.
> 
>     Standarising on a single API for in essence doing all of the above
> is a non-trivial issue and certainly picking an API from the existing
> packages or picking a particular products API would be a bold move IMHO.

  I agree.  IMHO, this should be left up to a seperate development group
or the implimentors, in some cases.
> 
>     I think that SSL library API issues belong in a separate group.

  To a degree I agree.  IMHO, this forum should be open enough to
discuss
these issues however.  If a seperate group is set up to deal with SSL
lib. API issues, than possibly at that point a seperate forum should
be established.
> 
> Tim.

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v- office)
E-Mail [email protected]