drewpc at COLORADO.EDU
Fri Feb 16 03:22:21 CET 2001
--On Thursday, February 15, 2001 1:46 PM +0100 Michael Ströder <michael at STROEDER.COM> wrote:
> Bryan Mongeau wrote:
>> It would definitely suit your needs, but I see its applications being
>> much broader than merely crypto routines. This method could be applied
>> to all python modules,
> Out of my scope and not necessary for most modules.
It might be something to keep in mind when designing how we will implement this though...who knows, maybe you've stumbled on to something great here! Might as well make it easy enough for other people to use it too!
>> > - Anybody concerned of a system admin having to edit a Python
>> > module? If this looks too scary we could write code generators for
>> > the registry module later.
>> As long as the installer has this preconfigured for the modules it is
>> installing, I do not see this as a problem at all. It becomes more
>> tedious as new modules/hardware are installed. Admins would have to be
>> made aware of this.
> If new implementation modules are installed the system administrator
> has to manually tweak this registry. One could imagine that new
> implementation modules register themselves by appending their class
> names to the lists of algorithms they implement. (Note: Using
> .append() as default installation method means add to *end of list*
> => lowest priority!)
This really scares me. The idea of having other people install their code into our module without us knowing it. What I'd rather do is have people submit their implementation to us and have us integrate it into the overall
package. Is this too big a task? What does everyone else think?
Be nice or I'll replace you with a very
small shell script.
More information about the python-crypto