As it turns out, ironically, I do have some engine experience, albeit
dated, and have also had quite of bit of experience with various flavors
of crypto. I'm not in a position to do any coding, but I'd be happy to
mentor anyone interested in developing a coherent crypto architecture.

On 11/5/2010 11:40 AM, Roman Rokytskyy wrote:
>> Roman, I disagree. I think thought should be given to the requirements
>> before settling on an interface. Really bad interfaces require haste...
> In general I agree, but...
>
> ...the issue is that encryption is some kind of low-prio for the
> project, considering the limited resources we have. None of the sponsors
> need this so far, their prios are in completely different area.
>
> However, there are people that want to play with this beast, so why not
> to enable them this?
>
> In general, I see open-source as more in the line with darvin's theory
> than creations theory... The Java plugin went through many iterations (I
> think 4), before getting into the main tree. And there will be more
> iterations needed, when it is released, since more and more people will
> use it...
>
> Same thing is with encryption - people knowing the engine internals are
> not best security specialists, those willing to play with the security
> do not know the engine internals... Some time must pass before the
> common denominator is found.
>
> IMHO, for sure.
>
> Roman
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Jim Starkey
Founder, NimbusDB, Inc.
978 526-1376