Re: openssl module for php
| From: | Sascha Kettler | Date: | Fri, 04 May 2001 20:43:04 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: openssl module for php | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-dev+get-53961@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:09:51PM +0100, Wez Furlong wrote:
> > On 2001-05-04 20:47:25, "Stig Venaas" <venaas@php.net> wrote:
> > > Even though it is 4 functions, I think users will find it easier to
> > > work with functions called openssl_public_encrypt,
> > > openssl_private_decrypt etc. It also separates them from possible
> > > symmetric enryption later on.
> >
> > So are we looking at openssl_asym_public_encrypt() (or is the asym part
> > redundant by implication?).
>
> I think that's pretty clear, but...
But?
> > IMHO, I prefer to spell it out - especially to those new to openssl (I'm
> > fairly new to it!) it helps to have things spelled out. That way, you
> > don't have to be an openssl hacker to benefit from the PHP interface.
> >
> > > I think it's generally better to not alter arguments, better return it
> > > this way. Is it good enough to report errors by returning an empty
> > > string? I think so.
> >
> > Can an empty string become an non-empty string when encrypted?
> > If so, when we decrypt it, we will not be able to distinguish
> > thecorrectly decrypted empty string from an error condition.
>
> Good point
>
> > We could return false (as is the convention), but then everyone would
> > have to use === to check it correctly.
>
> Yes, and not everyone will...
>
> Sascha also has a point regarding consistency with the existing
> functions, and I was the one who chose that interface... The reason
> was to have something that looked a bit like the C API, and to make
> the interface as clear as possible.
>
> So, I withdraw that comment (:
>
> I don't know for sure and I don't care to check right now, do you know
> if we always can see if the key is public or private? In that case, we
> don't need separate functions. Rather than showing my ignorance, I
> should investigate myself I guess (:
We could do that, but then we'd have to add something else telling the user
this isn't symmetric encryption :)
> Well, I think I'll leave this to you, haven't got that much sensible
> to say, and I'm busy with something else...
I prefer to have it separate, but that's just my personal opinion.
Sascha