On 21 June 2012 23:20, Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:46:19 -0400, Dave Brolley wrote:
> 1. What is the 'killer app' for secure connection? I know Frank and
I've seen two (out of two possible) potential use cases so far for it
when doing some initial event trace based PMDAs. In those cases,
the event parameters contain potentially sensitive information and if I
had had the option to encrypt I would have used it. :)
> Otherwise it's just 'everything must be encrypted' mantra which
> doesn't really make sense when talking about performance
> monitoring - think of Schroedinger's cat.
To my mind there's a clear need now - events often contain very
detailed payload information, so I'm very happy to see this area
progressing finally. I think it needs to be client-side opt-in though,
not mandated for all connections, which I think is consistent with
what's been discussed so far.
> brolley> file and pipe I/O in many cases. I have, so far, left as
> brolley> much code as I can unabstracted, however, for the sake of
> brolley> consistency, it may make sense to convert all I/O (at least
> brolley> within the pmcd) to use the abstraction layer.
(I'll put in a vote for consistency FWIW)
> I thought that Nathan has already gone and done the necessary changes
> to separate functions which deal with real sockets from functions
> which deal with 'other stuff' like file descriptors as part of Windows
We can (and do) still get access to file descriptors for Win32 calls, and they
are int there was well.