Catch up to the removal of OSSL_STORE_open_file()
Remove references to it in documentation. Unfortunately, it is too late to renumber symbols in libcrypto.num and avoid the NOEXIST entry there. Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3860)
This commit is contained in:
parent
baa77e0755
commit
1fb2993d9e
4 changed files with 8 additions and 25 deletions
|
@ -117,10 +117,10 @@ used by the application to get the objects in that file.
|
|||
This can be applied to all schemes that can somehow support a listing
|
||||
of object URIs.
|
||||
|
||||
For C<file:> URIs that are used without the explicit scheme, or paths
|
||||
given to L<OSSL_STORE_open_file(3)>, the returned name will be the path of
|
||||
each object, so if C</foo/bar> was given and that path has the file
|
||||
C<cookie.pem>, the name C</foo/bar/cookie.pem> will be returned.
|
||||
For C<file:> URIs that are used without the explicit scheme, the
|
||||
returned name will be the path of each object, so if C</foo/bar> was
|
||||
given and that path has the file C<cookie.pem>, the name
|
||||
C</foo/bar/cookie.pem> will be returned.
|
||||
|
||||
At the discretion of the loader that was used to get these names, an
|
||||
extra description may be attached as well.
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -99,26 +99,14 @@ OSSL_STORE_register_loader().
|
|||
|
||||
=head1 NOTES
|
||||
|
||||
When unsure whether a given string contains a simple file or directory
|
||||
reference, or if it's a full blown URI, the question is how to figure
|
||||
that out.
|
||||
One way is to try OSSL_STORE_open_file() and if that fails, try
|
||||
OSSL_STORE_open().
|
||||
The other way is the other way around.
|
||||
Either way you choose, there are corner cases,
|
||||
F<file:/foo/bar/cookie.txt> might very will be a simple file reference
|
||||
on a system that supports the notion of volumes.
|
||||
A string without a scheme prefix (that is, a non-URI string) is
|
||||
implicitly interpreted as using the F<file:> scheme.
|
||||
|
||||
This manual won't tell you which way is better, that's up to each
|
||||
application developer to decide on their own.
|
||||
However, there are some tools that can be used together with
|
||||
There are some tools that can be used together with
|
||||
OSSL_STORE_open() to determine if any failure is caused by an unparsable
|
||||
URI, or if it's a different error (such as memory allocation
|
||||
failures); if the URI was parsable but the scheme unregistered, the
|
||||
top error will have the reason C<OSSL_STORE_R_UNREGISTERED_SCHEME>.
|
||||
If you decide to use OSSL_STORE_open() with OSSL_STORE_open_file() as a
|
||||
fallback, those reasons can be good tools to decide if the fallback
|
||||
should be taken or not.
|
||||
|
||||
=head1 RETURN VALUES
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -59,10 +59,6 @@ only).
|
|||
|
||||
=head2 A generic call
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* There is also a OSSL_STORE_open_file() that can be used for file paths
|
||||
* that can't be represented as URIs, such as Windows backslashes
|
||||
*/
|
||||
OSSL_STORE_CTX *ctx = OSSL_STORE_open("file:/foo/bar/data.pem");
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -114,8 +114,7 @@ int OSSL_STORE_close(OSSL_STORE_CTX *ctx);
|
|||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Functions to generate OSSL_STORE_INFOs, one function for each type we
|
||||
* support having in them. Along with each of them, one macro that
|
||||
* can be used to determine what types are supported.
|
||||
* support having in them, as well as a generic constructor.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* In all cases, ownership of the object is transfered to the OSSL_STORE_INFO
|
||||
* and will therefore be freed when the OSSL_STORE_INFO is freed.
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue