[squeak-dev] Re: [SPAM] Re: WebClient / Port to Pharo
lenglish5 at cox.net
Fri Jun 18 14:18:27 UTC 2010
On 6/15/10 1:39 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:
> On 6/15/2010 12:50 AM, Frank Shearar wrote:
>>>> Does the WebClient package include https capabilities?
>>> No, it does not. It would be very nice to have of course.
>>> But writing an HTTPS (SSL) implementation at the Smalltalk level is a
>>> lot of work.
>>> Very few environments do (it could be that VW does so).
>>> Most link to OpenSSL to do the job, but that add another VM dependency.
>> IIRC, the Crypto team
>> (http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/cryptography/) got an SSL
>> implementation working. They've been a bit quiet of late.
>> (I'd just use OpenSSL: it's been beaten around the head for a long
> That's one option. OTOH, I have working Windows (plugin) code using
> the Windows SSP interface but I don't think the interface will work
> for an OpenSSL based implementation, so I'm somewhat hesitent to
> publish it. I think the best option would be implementing an OpenSSL
> BIO directly in the SocketPlugin - does anyone have experience with that?
The reason why I ask is because my work on a second life client in
squeak stalled when every UDP packet I sent was recognized improperly by
the Second LIfe server for some reason or another (even though the data
portion was identical as seen via wireshark). When I tried to switch to
a more modern squeak (I was using the Cobalt image and VM) I found that
none of them handled https, which is needed for the initial login
interaction and I couldn't figure out how to port the Cobalt-era
HttpsSocket to a more modern squeak.
The upshot is that without some kind of https login, a SL viewer is
impossible for Squeak, despite it being potentially a very good protocol
Resolving the UDP packet issue is another question of course, but until
I can log in using a modern squeak, I dont' expect anyone to try to hep
me with an esoteric bug that only appears when talking to a single
More information about the Squeak-dev