Prev: setprocname
Next: lambdas
From: Michael Crute on 14 Jun 2010 15:54
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis(a)pitrou.net> wrote:
> That was not my question. My question was whether there was a reason to
> rewrite a separate OpenSSL-accessing library rather than contributing to
> improve the "hashlib" and "ssl" modules which are already part of the
> Python stdlib.

The ssl module in the standard library is currently just SSL wrappers
around sock objects while M2Crypto, PyCrypto and Evpy are all a more
complete implementation of the other cryptography and signing features
in OpenSSL. I think it would be really awesome to have a complete
OpenSSL wrapper in the Python standard library since crypto in Python
is somewhat of a pain today. If I wanted to work on something like
that what would be the best approach? Extend the ssl package? Create a
new crypto package?


--
Michael E. Crute
http://mike.crute.org

It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problem just with
potatoes. --Douglas Adams
From: Antoine Pitrou on 14 Jun 2010 16:48
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:54:33 -0400
Michael Crute <mcrute(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis(a)pitrou.net> wrote:
> > That was not my question. My question was whether there was a reason to
> > rewrite a separate OpenSSL-accessing library rather than contributing to
> > improve the "hashlib" and "ssl" modules which are already part of the
> > Python stdlib.
>
> The ssl module in the standard library is currently just SSL wrappers
> around sock objects while M2Crypto, PyCrypto and Evpy are all a more
> complete implementation of the other cryptography and signing features
> in OpenSSL. I think it would be really awesome to have a complete
> OpenSSL wrapper in the Python standard library since crypto in Python
> is somewhat of a pain today. If I wanted to work on something like
> that what would be the best approach? Extend the ssl package? Create a
> new crypto package?

It depends on what feature(s) exactly you want to work on. If you want
to provide encryption/decryption routines, perhaps a new module or
package is best. In any case, feel free to open a entry at
http://bugs.python.org and we can discuss it.

Regards

Antoine.
From: geremy condra on 14 Jun 2010 17:43
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis(a)pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:54:33 -0400
> Michael Crute <mcrute(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis(a)pitrou.net> wrote:
>> > That was not my question. My question was whether there was a reason to
>> > rewrite a separate OpenSSL-accessing library rather than contributing to
>> > improve the "hashlib" and "ssl" modules which are already part of the
>> > Python stdlib.
>>
>> The ssl module in the standard library is currently just SSL wrappers
>> around sock objects while M2Crypto, PyCrypto and Evpy are all a more
>> complete implementation of the other cryptography and signing features
>> in OpenSSL. I think it would be really awesome to have a complete
>> OpenSSL wrapper in the Python standard library since crypto in Python
>> is somewhat of a pain today. If I wanted to work on something like
>> that what would be the best approach? Extend the ssl package? Create a
>> new crypto package?
>
> It depends on what feature(s) exactly you want to work on. If you want
> to provide encryption/decryption routines, perhaps a new module or
> package is best. In any case, feel free to open a entry at
> http://bugs.python.org and we can discuss it.

Issue opened:

http://bugs.python.org/issue8998

Geremy Condra
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: setprocname
Next: lambdas