commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [PGP] choose another name?
Date Thu, 19 May 2005 11:47:54 GMT
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 19:01 +1000, Brett Porter wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >
> >openPGP is the name used for a group of RFC's inspired by pretty good
> >privacy. is an association of implementors
> >promoting the use of this standard (which is probably the source of the
> >confusion). is the RFC in question
> >and covers a message format. it included implementation details as well
> >as specification (which is another source for the confusion).
> ok, so commons-openpgp would be ok. I'm still thinking commons-crypto is
> a good name, but I'll be happy with either. It can always be changed
> later when it is expanded I guess.

IMHO commons-openpgp gives a very nice, tightly focused well-named
component with a clean concrete aim (an openPGP implementation). no
baggage, no arguments later about scope. if the requirements expand,
then it's time to create another small component (or two).
commons-crypto sounds good but maybe that's a name for tomorrow...

> >>maybe it'd be possible to get enough momentum to think about aiming for
> >a jakarta-crypto in the medium term followed by an apache-crypto project
> >one day...
> LOL... I hope this has a fair bit of tongue in cheek :) 

yep :)

> It's good to
> have a long term goal, but I'm not getting that carried away just yet.


> As far as I understand, we're only aiming for something that wraps
> bouncycastle and/org cryptix (which, at least in BC's case from my
> experience,  already does the crypto stuff very well) that is at a
> higher level and isolated from the provider's own API. We're just
> signing some deployments here, for now :)


- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message