Peter Djalaliev wrote: > If ss->securityHandshake is not used anymore, maybe both functions > should set the handshake function using the ss->handshake function > pointer to avoid confusion. Also, would getting rid of the > ss->securityHandshake pointer altogether be possible, too? This would > avoid some possible confusion, too. Just an idea, there might be good > reasons (that I don't know) why this shouldn't be done...
Here's one: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Given the real work load of bug fixes and requested enhancements, tweaking code that's running without any known problems just isn't a priority. -- Nelson B _______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
