Thank,
Michael
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: rsabase.dll
Date: Tuesday 27 July 2004 10:08
From: Michael Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rob,
> I think there are many reasons to favour "real handles": If a long runni
On Monday 26 July 2004 00:14, Robert Shearman wrote:
> >- Implementation of "real handles", instead of "address-handles".
>
> This is useful. Address handles (pointers to objects in memory) have the
> disadvantage that they can leak memory if the application can't be
> bothered to free them, althou
Michael Jung wrote:
Rob,
as far as I can tell from looking at your patch, our work is pretty much non
overlapping.
RSABase isn't that big. It is hard to do much without overlapping.
I worked on the following aspects:
- Implementation of "real handles", instead of "address-handles".
This is use
Rob,
as far as I can tell from looking at your patch, our work is pretty much non
overlapping.
I worked on the following aspects:
- Implementation of "real handles", instead of "address-handles".
- Separating OpenSSL dependend code from CSP code. I consider
this beneficial, since there seem
