Re: [binarycloud-dev] revised entity def format...

[Alex B. <en...@tu...>]

> On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Alex Black wrote:
> 
>>> Wouldn't this be better accomplished with a user-definable field-type with
>>> an
>>> associated I/O class..having a tag called "encrypt" seems too simplistic to
>>> really provide any meaningful encryption service..
>> 
>> For example: we'll have systeic control over encryption settings, but I
>> think it's safe to assume that a developer would want to use the same key
>> length and settings for all the fields (as it would be a nightmare to
>> maintain a key per field, etc)
>> 
>> in the entity definition, encryption is as simple as "encrypt" ... elsewhere
>> we'll have very fine control over what exactly happens as a result.
>> 
> 
> Cool, as long as using that tag doesn't mean you get shitty 56bit encryption
> with a static salt :)

em, no.

hehe.

yes, it's encryption for three-year-olds!

:)

_a