API renaming

[Dr. Matthias St. Pierre]

I like the OSSL_ prefix for new APIs as proposed by Richard. And I agree with Shane
that we should go for a single prefix and not have two alternatives. Existing prefixes
for things like feature macros should remain as they are, but if the OSSL_ prefix is
our choice for the future, we should start using it consistently for _all_ new APIs in 3.0.
And not make it a random choice (pun intended) depending on whether the API went
into master early or late. So my favorite choice is a consistent renaming, i.e.

	OSSL_MAC, OSSL_KDF, OSSL_RAND, OSSL_CTX, ...

OTOH, it would be ok for me if we would make an exception for EVP_MAC and EVP_KDF,
because they have a long EVP history, as Matt pointed out. But using the EVP_ prefix
for the new RAND interface never made sense to me.

What bothers me about OPENSSL_CTX in particular is the fact that it is a mixture of
a non-abbreviated and an abbreviated word. IMHO it should be either OSSL_CTX or
OPENSSL_CONTEXT, and the former is obviously preferrable for its length.

Matthias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: openssl-project <openssl-project-bounces at openssl.org> On Behalf Of Richard Levitte
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 8:34 AM
> To: openssl-project at openssl.org
> Subject: Re: API renaming
> 
> I'm fine with that, really.
> 
> I have a preference for OSSL_, but if we look through the source,
> there's reason for either.  So far, we've majorly used OPENSSL_ for
> things like feature macros (disabling macros, really), environment
> variables, that sort of thing, while OSSL_ has become the primary
> choice for new APIs ("less klunky", I think the judgement was in that
> past discussion I keep referring to).
> 
> And yeah, I hear you from all the way around the planet, there are
> some recent name choice that were made that give pause and are
> arguably a mistake in this regard.  EVP_MAC and EVP_KDF could have
> been OSSL_MAC and OSSL_KDF.  OPENSSL_CTX could have been OSSL_CTX.
> I have no problem recognising that.  But, they are there, even though
> only in master (*).  This is question of what we do going forward (a
> yet unmerged PR with a new API is as good a target as any).
> 
> Cheers,
> Richard
> 
> (*) I'm not sure I see master as something untouchable in this regard,
> as the development is still not frozen (alpha), so I for one could
> easily see a rename fest happening, should we decide for it.  That
> must happen before we enter the beta phase, though...
>