Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90461 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 33780 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2016 21:01:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Jan 2016 21:01:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=fsb@thefsb.org; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=fsb@thefsb.org; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain thefsb.org designates 173.203.187.67 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: fsb@thefsb.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 173.203.187.67 smtp67.iad3a.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [173.203.187.67] ([173.203.187.67:38746] helo=smtp67.iad3a.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 04/FF-14657-3B6C2965 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:01:40 -0500 Received: from smtp9.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp9.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 49723380382; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:01:37 -0500 (EST) X-Auth-ID: fsb@thefsb.org Received: by smtp9.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fsb-AT-thefsb.org) with ESMTPSA id 88959380387; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:01:36 -0500 (EST) X-Sender-Id: fsb@thefsb.org Received: from [10.0.1.2] (c-66-30-62-12.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [66.30.62.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DES-CBC3-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.5.4); Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:01:37 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.9.151119 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:01:33 -0500 To: Scott Arciszewski CC: Pierre Joye , PHP Internals Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Libsodium References: <5692BC8F.4030503@thefsb.org> In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Libsodium From: fsb@thefsb.org (Tom Worster) On 1/10/16, 3:39 PM, "Scott Arciszewski" wrote: >On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Tom Worster wrote: >> On 1/7/16 11:24 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: >>> >>> What I do not like too much is the addition of an extension with >>> (relatively) low level functions for one specific library. It does not >>> really matter how good is this specific library, I simply do not see >>> such addition as a good strategic move. >> >> >> I also worry that it's yet another thing to maintain. The more API you >>offer >> to the PHP programmer, the more responsibility you take on. >> >> Tom > >Except two things: > >1. I'm trying to get rid of mcrypt, bringing the net change of >cryptography libraries to maintain to 0, but still improving the >cryptography library availability significantly. >2. I'm willing to maintain it, so you're gaining manpower with this >change. > >I'd argue that, strategically, what I've proposed across several RFCs >is superior to maintaining the status quo. A high-level API that plugs into Sodium, Open,Libre,BoringSSL (and maybe etc.) in addition to a low-level libsodium API is more responsibility in total than only high-level API. So "relative to the status quo" isn't the only interesting perspective. Unless I misunderstand your proposal. Are you saying that you are only interested in working on the high-level API if libsodium moves to core? In that case the other perspective isn't relevant. Tom