https (SSL connections to http)
Rob Landley
rob at landley.net
Sun Feb 19 22:01:31 UTC 2006
On Saturday 18 February 2006 2:12 pm, Jason Schoon wrote:
> I haven't looked at MatrixSSL for quite a while, so I'm not sure if this is
> possible or not. I think it would be really cool if through a
> configuration option you could choose to use this version of MatrixSSL, or
> to choose to use OpenSSL libraries instead.
There's a guy I'm emailing who thinks he can beat MatrixSSL by a considerable
margin. I'm holding off worrying about this until about the 1.2 timeframe,
myself.
> For many people obviously getting the code all as small as possible is
> ideal.
Um, yes?
The point of busybox is to give you the best bang for the byte out of simple C
code. (You can do better with hand-coded assembly, but you have to redo that
from scratch on arm, mips, x86-64. And maintaining assembly code is a pain.)
> However, I already have OpenSSL shared libraries (paired down as
> much as possbile) on my platform for other applications, so I actually save
> space by continuing to use OpenSSL.
>
> Sounds like a cool project in either case, just something to keep in mind
> while you're working.
One thing I was hoping libbusybox.so could do is export some standard
interfaces to our code. For example, we have gzip and gunzip, so why have
zlib on your system? Why not link to libbusybox if we provide a standard
interface for that?
(In theory it's possible to have one binary be both an executable and a shared
library. In practice, I don't know how to set that up... :)
Rob
--
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
More information about the busybox
mailing list