Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60805
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nG89oqttTJDyTp3aK7bBqb1=ppYMBcHk=i40ycSMN895w@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>
	<CAAyV7nG89oqttTJDyTp3aK7bBqb1=ppYMBcHk=i40ycSMN895w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:46:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nG7YLNV=pM0o47jdGMsTFw6PcOG-vrtj8dWE-ckMYhiXA@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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PBKDF2 addition to OpenSSL - Why Not Hash?
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

I've submitted a Pull Request for this feature.  I'll whip up an RFC
for it tonight and propose it.

https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/105

Thanks,

Anthony

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wro=
te:
> 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). =A0I'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