I agree with Joerg on this one. When we get ten or fifteen different
encryption ciphers / hashes, we will regret using whatever naming
convention came from the original source (especially since algorithms
are coming from different sources, leaving for inconsistent naming).
We've already had to deal with issue when importing the existing crypto
source (mostly from Samba), and that is what prompted the convention.
Given that the code is likely to require some changes anyway to work in
the Ethereal code base (includes, data types, etc), it is highly
unlikely that a user will be able to do a direct patch without some
merging anyway.
Of course, perhaps MD5 was able to be imported without modification, but
this would be the exception not the rule.
The code isn't likely to change much, and patch can be fed arbitrary
filenames. Better to stick with a consistent naming convention.
-Devin
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 08:10, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:01:05AM -0800, jharris wrote:
> > If I get a vote.. I would cast it for keep it the same.. md5.[ch].
> > The reason being is that while it is unlikly that the md5 code will
> > change, it would be easier to merge updates if the names werent changed.
> ...
> > On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
> > > > Checked in.
> ...
> > > maybe the files should be renamed crypt-md5.[c|h]
> > > to be consistent with the naming for md4 and rc4
>
> Hmm, I think it is more important to have somewhat consistent naming. The
> patching is not that difficult. Ethereal has so many files at the top
> level that it isn't healthy anyway, so each bit of systematic naming helps.
>
> ciao
> Jï¿œrg
>
> --
> Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
> I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know
> what proactive means.
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-dev mailing list
> Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
--
Devin Heitmueller
Senior Software Engineer
Netilla Networks Inc