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); >> > >> > } >> >