Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60801 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 75300 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2012 12:18:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Jun 2012 12:18:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:37828] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C8/DC-18025-C8337DF4 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:18:22 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15AD5DE13E; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:18:17 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:18:16 +0100 (BST) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Anthony Ferrara cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PBKDF2 addition to OpenSSL - Why Not Hash? From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > Hello all, > > I noticed that yesterday a patch was committed to trunk to add PBKDF2 > support to the OpenSSL extension. I also noted that in the commit > message, the author indicated that he would have rather added it to > the hash extension, but wasn't able to. Why wasn't he been able to? > I had added a patch back in January for that very feature (adding > PBKDF2 to Hash). https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=60813 > > Personally, I'd MUCH rather see it in hash(), as it's enabled on far > more installs (every one) than openssl, Because of this, I think it > would be far more useful to add it to hash. > > Should I create a pull request for this, to implement it in hash > instead of OpenSSL? What do you think? Doesn't hurt to have it in both of course... So sure. Derick