Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96571
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.161.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: php@golemon.com
In-Reply-To: <ae9e2346-f818-daf5-9171-d1e7223cd603@gmail.com>
References: <CAESVnVqjJUF=SCua7DiTXZOyfQ9Ztb6o3aVfLywnwY8g=CRnLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c_nO=mtAtqnRM4uqWhqRsY=ChSKn31UJ9D8zwt1z64W+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1476834503.1248593.760253489.1D748624@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CAF+90c94JT8H0bpJLiOb0fZfd8i2zEzESvgKQWngqBMNvoxLTA@mail.gmail.com> <ae9e2346-f818-daf5-9171-d1e7223cd603@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:09:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAESVnVrNLMNM2T28JngTVK7FDZPOYaj1FtiCrWN=ahnsM3T=5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, Daniel Morris <daniel@honestempire.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] OpenSSL BigNum support
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What are the specific reasons for choosing OpenSSL Bignums over GMP,
>> outside of extension availability (which is totally a path I don't want us
>> to go down -- see also recent attempts to duplicate ext/mbstring into
>> ext/standard)? Are there any particular properties of the openssl
>> implementation that are beneficial for certain applications?
>
> I'd say having it for free when you have OpenSSL is a factor. If it were
> separate extension, I'd say the right route is to just make PECL ext as
> usual, but since this kind of has the natural place in openssl, it may
> be a bit different.
>
> I do see a point though that somehow integrating with the rest of
> OpenSSL would be a good thing then. After all, if you have code that
> does some interesting stuff with data but you can't use openssl pkey
> functions to input/output the results, it turns into reimplementing the
> whole crypto system and that's usually not a good idea.
>
Is the feedback then that we should expose /more/ of the OpenSSL API?
I'm happy to expand this to encompass more of the crypto library
functions.

-Sara