[rust-dev] Moving libcrypto back into rust repo?

benjamin adamson adamson.benjamin at gmail.com
Wed Jan 29 11:13:59 PST 2014


Is there no performance implications for using the bindings vs using rust
code (assuming everything else is equal)??

I assume if the crypto libraries are going to be maintained, keeping the
bindings up to date allows us to focus on more important libraries, rather
then maintaining a parallel rust implementation.


On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean McArthur <smcarthur at mozilla.com>wrote:

> Considering the effort to break up libextra into multiple crates in
> #8784[1], could rust-crypto[2] be moved back into rust as libcrypto?
>
> Some comments on the issue deviated about whether crypto should written
> *in* Rust, or just be bindings. As a user, I don't care how they are
> implemented, as long as the exposed API is Rust-like. However, I can't
> imagine scouring the internet for a crypto library maintained by someone,
> instead of using what comes with Rust (which gives me a sense of assurance
> that it does the crypto correctly).
>
>
>
> [1]: https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/8784
> [2]: https://github.com/DaGenix/rust-crypto
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rust-dev mailing list
> Rust-dev at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/attachments/20140129/4836b37c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Rust-dev mailing list