Sure. I cannot recall if I offered a stream interface or not. I could add one and we could treat this and the SqueakSSL stream as provider impl to a wrapper stream. I'll comment more as I dig into it. I think I will fork a PharoSSL project, since I know of at least one change in there. Rob -----Original Message----- From: Sven Van Caekenberghe Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:53 AM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] SSL/HTTPS -SecureSocketStream/SSLSessionforPharo/Squeak and otherSmalltalk implementations Rob, On 12 May 2011, at 16:38, Rob Withers wrote:
It is a complete implementation with the bare minimum of supported algorithms, based on the spec. It is 100% in Smalltalk. It worked last time I tested in, several years ago. I will be able to tell you more this weekend. Others have been adding fixes/small features since, but not a lot - the base is pretty solid. I painstakingly followed the RFC for SSL - I think I read it over 20 times! The only issue would be algorithm support. I never benchmarked it, but seeing the difference in performance between Smlltalk crypto code like 3DES and plugin code, there is a SIGNIFICANT improvement (10x?). I do not know the state of Profiling under Pharo. If someone could help set me up, then I will profile it this weekend. I imagine both performance and certification were the reasons for SqueakSSL.
There is also an SSH implementation I wrote that does dynamic window resizing on net latency.
It would be *very cool* if that code base could be ported to Pharo. It is really quite impressive that you did all this from the spec. I think that it would be possible to adjust my plan a bit, so that eventually, my code would use either the native plugin or your Smalltalk implementation. Then, we can compare features, functionality, bugs, etc.. Does that sound like a good idea ? Sven