Re: [Chicken-users] Cryptographic eggs

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

On 9 Feb 2009, at 12:40 pm, Peter Bex wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:00:55PM +0000, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:
> > For S3, I'll need to implement the S3 protocol, which is mainly HTTP
> > PUTs and GETs with special HTTP request headers for authenticating
> > the
> > requests. For some reason that daunts me (in my experience, it's
> > often
> > a pain getting the hashing *just right*), but I'm sure I'll get
> > there.
>
> Which egg would you use to do these requests?  Intarweb, http, or hand
> roll something?  It would be really nice if we could deprecate the
> http
> egg for Chicken 4.

Although I'm developing on 3 now, I'm keeping a mind open for moving
quickly and painlessly to 4 as soon as it's released (and in pkgsrc...)!

AIUI, intarweb is chicken4-only, right? Yes, deprecating http would be
good, so I'll avoid using that.

So I might be tempted to do what I'm doing with the posix-extras: the
posix-extras egg wasn't released (is it yet? I need to check), so I
embedded the bits I needed in ugarit for the time being, so they can
easily be stripped out and replaced with a "(use posix-extras)".

Gah, I just realised I forgot to add the crypto eggs to the
dependencies in the .meta file, whoops... mental note: write and
propose patch to chicken-setup that makes use complain if you use a
unit not declared in the base or in an egg listed in the .meta!

Anyway, yes, back on topic: what might be best, then, is if I embed
some of the innards of intarweb into the s3 egg's code for now, such
that when it goes to chicken 4 I can just replace that with "(use
intarweb) (import doohickies without a prefix)" or whatever it is ;-)

> > VOTE! :-)
>
> I don't find S3 all that exciting, while SFTP is very nifty to have.
>
> So I vote for SFTP.

Vote noted - SFTP is in the lead...

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/
Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/?author=4