Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60804
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7MaOFsUw3VSW-c37SxgokBKDds3RiZ3EKbHXyg=gD6mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nHrmZWXUGnzog44kba35Fap38jaCptecRFjessWFHu74w@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1206121317310.4834@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
	<CAAyV7nGO76dP6NnvuTZ54eY3RuvkucNfSwW=uJJ707sHxEbt6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7MaOFsUw3VSW-c37SxgokBKDds3RiZ3EKbHXyg=gD6mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:38:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nG89oqttTJDyTp3aK7bBqb1=ppYMBcHk=i40ycSMN895w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, David Soria Parra <dsp@php.net>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, 
	internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PBKDF2 addition to OpenSSL - Why Not Hash?
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Pierre,

> I am all for having it in hash as well. But yes, it requires more work
> that may need additional RFC (changing the API to allow more options
> need discussions).

What options are needed? The API refactoring that I have done has all
been to static functions, and extracting methods from public ones. I
didn't need to change any public APIs (that I saw).  I'm not sure what
"more options" intended to mean (by you, or by Scott), but I don't see
the need, as it's implemented and passes tests without that. If I'm
missing something, please let me know.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't need an RFC, just trying to clarify
the API change. The only API change would be the addition of the
method (at least based on my implementation)... So if it still needs
an RFC, I'm fine with that. I'll whip one up for mine after I get the
PR tested (I have it applied successfully, just want to verify it a
few more times by re-compiling a few times before submitting the PR
and writing the RFC):
https://github.com/ircmaxell/php-src/tree/hash_pbkdf2

> That being said, I am really not in favor of having it yet in 5.4. For
> two reasons, first 5.4 is bugs fixes only, no new feature. The second
> reason is the whole thing behind this addition. As it looks self
> contained, I am not convinced that it is a good choice, or that it is
> well tested or designed (api wised) yet. I would prefer to leave it
> master for now and see if it is usable and stable for php-next. I have
> to ask to revert this addition in the 5.4 branch.

No argument there at all. While it would be nice to get it in 5.4, I
can certainly live with 5.5. Especially with the more rapid release
cycles that have been occurring here (instead of 3 to 4 years between
releases).

Thanks!

Anthony