Good point on the multi-user system. Maybe a script is the best way to go about the problem of initializing the signature scheme for my thesis professors.
I will gladly contribute, but I'm guessing that my code will be pretty obsolete when the pbc library is ported into SAGE... - I'll just have to be fast then :-) Thank you for your advice. /David On 13 Nov., 15:28, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:03 AM, David Møller Hansen > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi > > > So I'm getting to the point in my masters thesis where I have coded > > some different .sage files and now I have to package it in some way > > making it easy to use with SAGE for my professor and the censor. > > > I just want to explain the content of my implementation in short: > > It is basically a slow pairing based signature system (BLS). > > signature_scheme.sage file which uses some of the different components > > in sage: field_ext, elliptic_curves etc. > > And then it also uses a weil pairing function I've written in sage, I > > do not want to make this part of the signature scheme code, since if I > > have some extra time later I want to work on trying to make this > > function faster (haven't really figured out how) > > I'm currently in the process of wrapping the functions in my > > signature_cheme.sage file in a signature_scheme class providing a > > static scheme setup and maybe making it possible to generate a > > interact in notebook() mode. > > > I've looked at making a .spkg but I'm not really sure that this is the > > correct thing to do, since I want to call components in SAGE and all > > the optional packages I've looked at is mostly just code ported from c > > by wrapping with some python setup files (I haven't looked at all the > > packages). > > > I guess what I am asking is: Is making a spkg from my sage code, the > > right thing to do or is it complete nonsense? Since I've yet only > > encountered spkg's made from external code bases. If there is a > > counter example of this, then please let me know, then I can use it as > > a template if I were to package my code. > > First, I think the best thing to do is to work on getting your code into > Sage itself soon. Even if it isn't optimal speedwise, that's not a show > stopper -- correct code that adds new functionality is something we > definitely want. We release new versions of Sage every 2 weeks or > less, so once in Sage your code would rapidly get distributed. > Regarding pairings, we specifically don't have *anything* in Sage for > computing any pairings. > > Regarding your above question, probably the best thing for you to do > is a make a tar-ball or zip archive that contains all the sage files, > and instructions > about how to use them (e.g., attach "foo.sage" and type "blah" to test that > this works). Then put that code on a web page. Installing an > spkg has the drawback that it requires modifying the > Sage install (e.g., something that requires write permissions on a Sage > install), so wouldn't work for "end users" who didn't install Sage themselves > (e.g., on a multi-user system). > > William > > William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
