Reordering new API's that have a libctx, propq

Tim Hudson tjh at
Mon Sep 14 12:14:08 UTC 2020

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 9:52 PM Matt Caswell <matt at> wrote:

> > And that is the point - this is not how the existing CTX functions work
> > (ignoring the OPENSSL_CTX stuff).
> Do you have some concrete examples of existing functions that don't work
> this way?


And all the existing method using functions which are also factories.

But I get the point - if there is only one argument is it logically coming
first or last - obviously it can be seen both ways.

IMO, we absolutely MUST have the ability to delete parameters (for
> example ENGINEs). If we can do that, then I don't see why we can't add
> parameters.

No - that doesn't follow. It is perfectly reasonable to have an ENGINE
typedef that remains and is passed as NULL as usual - and in fact most of
the top-level ENGINE stuff handles NULL as meaning no engine usage so that
would remain consistent. There is no absolute requirement to delete a
parameter for this or other purposes. If you want to reorder parameters I
would argue it should be a new function name and not an _ex version.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the openssl-project mailing list