Comments on: OpenSSL v1.0.0 for Indy http://blog.digivendo.com/2010/03/openssl-v1-0-0-for-indy/ Delphi Development & More Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:34:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Arvid Winkelsdorf http://blog.digivendo.com/2010/03/openssl-v1-0-0-for-indy/comment-page-1/#comment-5223 Arvid Winkelsdorf Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:27:38 +0000 http://blog.digivendo.com/?p=237#comment-5223 <a href="#comment-5222" rel="nofollow">@J. Peter Mugaas</a> Thanks for the attention and having an eye on it ;) Regarding the Win platform there is no difference by using static engines. Engine support is only related to the support of hardware cryptographic providers, which by default are included in the Mingw32/gcc build chain on Win32 too (as it is the unix build chain). On other systems those engines might be used dynamically using the .so/.lib files. By including static engines we allow support of the new GOST engine (bit misplaced there). Other structures and exposed functionality are not affected from what I can tell (I checked the OpenSSL sources to be sure). @J. Peter Mugaas

Thanks for the attention and having an eye on it ;)

Regarding the Win platform there is no difference by using static engines. Engine support is only related to the support of hardware cryptographic providers, which by default are included in the Mingw32/gcc build chain on Win32 too (as it is the unix build chain). On other systems those engines might be used dynamically using the .so/.lib files.

By including static engines we allow support of the new GOST engine (bit misplaced there).

Other structures and exposed functionality are not affected from what I can tell (I checked the OpenSSL sources to be sure).

]]> By: J. Peter Mugaas http://blog.digivendo.com/2010/03/openssl-v1-0-0-for-indy/comment-page-1/#comment-5222 J. Peter Mugaas Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:43:26 +0000 http://blog.digivendo.com/?p=237#comment-5222 One major thing I can see is that you are not using dynamic engines. For OpenSSL 1.0.0, this is the default behavior and that could effect what functions and structures are exposed. If we deviate too far, we are likely to create conflicts if developers start using other .DLL versions with Indy. I can understand why developers may need their own custom OpenSSL compilations and there's several different ways of doing it. WHat I'm saying is just be careful. One major thing I can see is that you are not using dynamic engines. For OpenSSL 1.0.0, this is the default behavior and that could effect what functions and structures are exposed. If we deviate too far, we are likely to create conflicts if developers start using other .DLL versions with Indy.

I can understand why developers may need their own custom OpenSSL compilations and there’s several different ways of doing it. WHat I’m saying is just be careful.

]]>