Re: Push Request #21

There really doesn't seem to be much interest in this proposed patch. Should I continue development efforts on closing this feature request? I do also have a few questions regarding standards adherence, and memory leak methods of detection. I ask about the memory leak detection as passing test scripts through valgrind only led me to find leaks in the openssl_pkey_new() function. Thanks for any help you can provide Jas On Apr 3, 2012, at 4:47 AM, Jason Gerfen <jason.gerfen@gmail.com> wrote: > Please bear with me as I am going to address a few things that (being new) I seem to have over > looked upon my initial pull request @ û¹¾‚̙脵 > ³¢ýxv‡https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/21. > > I have forked and submitted a push request to add native spkac functionality per a feature > request @ https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=38917. > > It introduces five new functions: > openssl_spki_new() > openssl_spki_export() > openssl_spki_export_challenge() > openssl_spki_verify() > openssl_spki_details() > > First I am not sure I should include the openssl_spki_details() function as it may be overkill > and the remainder of the PHP OpenSSL extension does not have anything providing the modulus and > other details. I am leaning towards the omitting of this in next pull request. > > Second. The warning message UC first or all LC has been brought up. The remainder of the > warnings messages do not use LC at all and I simply followed this example. > > Third. The adherence to C89 vs. C99 functions, I could not find references to this in any of > the internals docs. I very well could have missed it. > > Fourth. A couple of you made mention of re-factoring to omit goto statements. Does this mean > the remainder of the ext/openssl/openssl.c file should be re-factored as I originally used this as > an example of creating new functions which does include a few functions making use of goto > statements. > > Thanks for any feedback you can provide > > -- > Jas