Xojo is not multi platform. If you want to move, which i regret, I strongly advise you to go for the B4X platform.
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: use-livecode <use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com> on behalf of Bernard Devlin via use-livecode <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 7:19:58 PM To: How to use LiveCode <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> Cc: Bernard Devlin <bdrun...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: open secure socket... using certificate Hi Richard The idea of client certificates was why I was looking for this feature for the past 15 years. I know that PKI is complex but it is important (which is why browsers implemented it decades ago). Even tsNet behaves very differently on Windows and OS X when it comes to server certificates (looks to me that Microsoft is mis-implementing their libcurl/schannel interface, but I guess it stung them 20 years ago when they hadn't implemented Certificate Revocation Lists). Without LC having client certificates the only option I face is moving to another tool. Even the idea of implementing real secure sockets in a FFI external would be a huge amount of work for any of us users (as there is not even a single lower level language which we could rely on in each platform, so we'd be implementing a complex security layer and learning how to do it in several different languages). I'm going to look at moving to Xojo. Their docs say they implemented secure sockets with certificates in 2006. Their Android deployment platform is close to completion. It really would have been better for LC to have removed those claims from the Dictionary back in 2014, as then I'd have seen in recent years it still hadn't been implemented and would have looked at another tool months ago rather than get to this point and realise I'd wasted a lot of time. I've spent an entire week now just pondering on the options on how I can move forward. Regards, Bernard On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:12 PM Richard Gaskin via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > Thank you, Bernard. In bringing myself up to speed on this, once I > stumbled across the phrase "two-way SSL" I was able to find much good > reading about it. > > I just added Comment #11 to the bug report on this: > > The range of services requiring two-way SSL is increasing, > and with IoT the scope of use cases is multiplying. > > Where required, I don't see an opportunity for a scripted > workaround, so in those cases the only alternative is to > leave LC for a tool that supports two-way SSL. > > This would seem a good time to bite the bullet on this > implementation. What would be required to make it happen? > > https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=13410#c11 > > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
