> The decision in the case of OpenSSL was that 1.x would have a stable API, > permitting shared libraries to be used interchangeably. OpenSSL does not > have a stable API yet, officially.
If that's the rationale, I eagerly await 1.0. The lack of a stable API has hurt me far too many times. I encourage the developers to freeze the existing API. > "Shared library is currently an experimental feature. The only reason to > have them would be to conserve memory on systems where several program > are using OpenSSL. Binary backward compatibility can't be guaranteed > before OpenSSL version 1.0." I think this was the original idea. For me, the more important reason to use a shared library is the ability to upgrade the library when I don't have access to the source/object code that uses the library.
