Now that we have the largeinteger plugins, I wanted to revisit this.  

Specifically, what needs to be done to unify the code?

>From where I stand I would suggest we just add the non-plugin MD5 to the system.  It works well, is nicely self contained, and I am not clear how much benefit we would get by refactoring it to merge with the DSA class (though I am open to discussion about this).

John, Stefan, anyone else: comments?

Mike


_______
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 22:10:03 +0200
From: Stefan Matthias Aust <sma at 3plus4.de>
Subject: Re: Was: [ENH] MD5 128-bit one-way hash
To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu

At 10:51 01.05.00 -0700, Duane Maxwell wrote:
> >Mike Rutenberg wrote:
> >> I would like to speak up in favour of including your MD5 implementation
> >>in Squeak, along with the SHA which is there now.

>Michael Rueger wrote:
> >I second this.

>Well, it's certainly fine with me - but it's really up to SqC to decide
>what goes into the base image.

I know that SqC wants this stuff in the image but we first need a volunteer 
to unify the code.  IMHO, if we add it, it should be done right.  So is 
there any brave soul out there who wants to work on this?

bye
--
Stefan Matthias Aust  //  Bevor wir fallen, fallen wir lieber auf