Hi all
It seems we are in some sort of agreement so far apart from code
review/comments. However, I have a fundamental question - going forward how
this work from the process standpoint? What do we do with this KIP-486 vs
KIP-383? I feel that both needs to come together since in order to make
Pluggable key/trust store on top of making SslEngineBuilder pluggable we
will need changes suggested by KIP-486 with some differences to the
original proposal. It would great if someone can help us clarify the next
steps.
Thanks
Maulin
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:54 PM Maulin Vasavada <maulin.vasav...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Do you guys think it would be easier if you can provide comments on GitHub
> and we can continue there and summarize the conclusion here?
>
> We should not lose addressing any comments.
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:34 PM Pellerin, Clement <
> clement_pelle...@ibi.com> wrote:
>
>> The proposed interface does not look like the Builder pattern I am used
>> to.
>> Should SslEngineBuilder be called SslEngineFactory instead?
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019, at 03:33, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
>> > I would expect SslEngineBuilder interface to look something like this,
>> > perhaps with some tweaking:
>> >
>> > public interface SslEngineBuilder extends Configurable, Closeable {
>> >
>> > Set<String> reconfigurableConfigs();
>> >
>> > boolean shouldBeRebuilt(Map<String, Object> nextConfigs);
>> >
>> > SSLEngine createSslEngine(Mode mode, String peerHost, int
>> > peerPort, String endpointIdentification);
>> >
>> > }
>>
>
