Yes, I noted that usage of the APIs in combination with common use-cases is more appropriate, but this doesn't obviate the need for per-API documentation, as has occurred so far on the openssl website.
And I agree with the previous point that we should be trying to collectively figure out how to update the documentation in sync with the available features and functionality of the 1.0 release. Randy On Nov 26, 2009, at 3:35 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > >> Finally, the source code IS the only reliable source of documentation >> (assuming you can trust your compiler, OS, and hardware to do "the right >> thing"). It isn't the most CONVENIENT, which is why we desire other forms. >> > > the implementation details of the 250-odd API entry points in libssl.so would > tell me very little about how to properly USE those APIs, and in fact, > designing an application around my interpretation of the library developers > intent would likely lead me down some rabbit holes I'd rather not explore. > > This is my idea of how open source documentation should be organized and > written. > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/index.html > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org > User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org > Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org > ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
