apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Garrett Rooney" <roo...@electricjellyfish.net>
Subject Fwd: [PROPOSAL/PATCH] add ssl sockets
Date Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:58:51 GMT
David meant to send this to the list...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: david reid <david@jetnet.co.uk>
Date: Jun 13, 2006 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL/PATCH] add ssl sockets
To: Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net>


Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 6/13/06, david reid <david@jetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> The attached patch is a first pass at getting some support for using
>> openssl directly for ssl sockets within APR. I've tried to be generic in
>> the basic configure code, but the actaul guts are basically openssl
>> related.
>>
>> Disclaimer - this is based on some code I had written a while back and
>> never really gotten finished, so this has a lot of it's flaws and
>> unfinished feeling. It does however show the approach I've been taking.
>> There isn't even documentation yet!
>>
>> What's attached isn't anywhere near finished or even heavily tested, but
>> it works as far as it has been tested and at least will (hopefully) spur
>> some discussion about
>>
>>  - whether this is desired
>>  - whether this is the right way to do it (other methods are apparent)
>>
>> I think it's something we should have and it's something I'll likely
>> persue, but I would like it to be in the main tree of apr-util. I'm not
>> proposing that what's included be submitted directly, but if this is the
>> approach then it'll give a starter for people to hack about.
>>
>> With that background, here is the code... I'm away from tomorrow until
>> Friday, so don't be offended if i don't reply...
>
> I think this would be great stuff to have around, but if possible I'd
> like to avoid having an entire separate ssl socket type that parallels
> the regular APR socket.  If we could have the ssl functions return a
> socket that knew how to do the SSL parts under the hood, that would be
> great...

We could have a function pointer structure that was used to call the
appropriate function, with a private data pointer. What the performance
implications would be I don't know. This might allow for some
simplification of the entire sockets code as well...

david

Mime
View raw message