Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of rooneg@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.200 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=VSutyWwdjU28DZ8sRd4RFCsLBWHApm61AX7PzhaYNUcUqtZhdMAK9I2Y2AkisCNiZI7RUy/5plehGgO5hfzC2/gHR7aQ4c45nkxsOzUMkERSrVi7iMgcTRwgZAXnTP7WBg6zmDj1QWRBmgvPMvnvsziJXPQC/AmmeYaBcIFxPB0=
Message-ID: <7edfeeef0608160942m783c90e2u1e70d88f0b89edb3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:42:48 -0400
From: "Garrett Rooney" <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net>
Sender: rooneg@gmail.com
To: "Klaus Wagner" <klaus@it-austria.net>
Subject: Re: Regex encap. but not SSL?
Cc: "david reid" <david@jetnet.co.uk>, dev@apr.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <1155725827.17030.44.camel@stalker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <44DE3675.5080501@jetnet.co.uk>
	 <7edfeeef0608140701x23c6a9f6ue0c1ff4ab1f1793a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44E09B56.6070906@jetnet.co.uk> <1155725827.17030.44.camel@stalker>

On 8/16/06, Klaus Wagner <klaus@it-austria.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 16:48 +0100, david reid wrote:
>
> > I've heard this a couple of times now, so while I had thought the
> > benefits spoke for themselves maybe they don't.
>
> As the regex encap. thread flames up I would like to know
> if anyone ever intended to encap. SSL Libraries in apr-util.
>
> The benefits would be far greater. gnutls and openssl could be
> included - maybe even microsofts crypto api. this would raise
> abilities for a) applications and b) httpd greatly which by now only
> supports openssl (if my understanding is correct).
>
> Openssl from a users view is quite hard to handle. There are several
> ways to initialize ciphers wrong, mess up the code with BIO structures
> and it gets even worse if nonblocking IO comes in.
>
> So the main benefit would be simplification and abstraction from BIO
> structures, beside the ability of using different backends.
>
> I know that this task would be complicated and I don't know if all
> crypto implementations have at least some similar functionalities
> that can be wrapped.

Initial implementations of ssl code have already been committed to
apr-util's trunk.

-garrett