Hi, David,
> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 15:43:48 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: David Corcoran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MUSCLE pcsc-lite
>
> Hello,
>
> I removed the card driver from the web site because it worked with the old
> pcsc. It was written in C++, used STL, and a bunch of other bloated and
> unportable stuff so I got rid of it.
>
> This is what I was asking the other day. Does anyone on the list think it
> would be appropriate to create a C API for card abstraction such as:
>
> SCardDirectory
> SCardCreateFile
> SCardValidate
> SCardInvalidate
> ......
>
> instead of the C++ API that Microsoft describes for card abstraction ? All
> the crypto stuff will be done in PKCS-11.
Yes, I think this is a good idea. This way, we can eliminate the
card dependency, and we no longer have to tailor APDUs for each type
of cards, right?
I am happy to help you with a driver for Cyberflex Access, as it is
our main development platform right now. Please let me know the
details of the C API you are planning.
> Or I can use the Microsoft C++
> API but avoiding STL's and other nasty things. The Microsoft API is the
> ISCardFileAccess class.
I think the advantage of providing C API is that there are a lot of C
programs which can benefit from using pcsc-lite, e.g., Kerberos,
filesystem, ssh, and pgp. What's the benefit of C++ API?
> I will probably keep pcsc-lite as it is and make
> the SSP provider it's own middleware that uses pcsc-lite as a plugin to
> keep things pretty modular.
>
> I'll try to have something ready by next week and a SSP driver that works
> with the Schlumberger Cryptoflex card ( I know it the best ).
That's cool.
Thanks.
--
Concentration .. Naomaru Itoi
***************************************************************
Linux Smart Card Developers - M.U.S.C.L.E.
(Movement for the Use of Smart Cards in a Linux Environment)
http://www.linuxnet.com/smartcard/index.html
***************************************************************
