(a) go for it
It seems like it would be reasonable to make the change at the same time
you introduce the streams2 branch. Don't worry about migrating it the
current, just to change it over.
On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:24:36 PM UTC-7, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
Please select one, and reply with
Not crypto related but since you're trying to give consistency to the API, why
not make other changes like:
var sock1 = new require(net).Socket(...);
var sock1 = require(dgram).createSocket(..);
I'm sure there aren't a lot of inconsistencies but this is one that bugs me..
--
Diogo Resende
I just realized there is dgram.Socket.. but the documentation says:
The dgram Socket class encapsulates the datagram functionality. It should be
created viadgram.createSocket(type, [callback]).
--
Diogo Resende
On Friday, October 12, 2012 at 17:25 , Diogo Resende wrote:
Not crypto related
If you have other complaints about Node's API, please post issues at
https://github.com/joyent/node/issues so that we can keep this thread
on topic.
Thanks.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Diogo Resende drese...@thinkdigital.pt wrote:
I just realized there is dgram.Socket.. but the
Crypto API breaking can create security problems. Also something marked as
stable which stops working in the next version is not good for any
project. I'd go for the option b.
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:24:36 AM UTC+2, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
Currently, the crypto module defaults to using
Luke,
That's a good point, I should have made the costs more clear initially.
In this case, the cost of delaying until 0.12 is that we delay what I
consider to be one of the 2 main features of 0.10. Those features
are:
1. The Streams API is consistent across node, used wherever
appropriate,
Oops, premature send, sorry.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Isaac Schlueter i...@izs.me wrote:
The cost of keeping it as it is, or delaying until 0.12, is that it
continues to be a confusing pain-point for users, and an awful
overly-complicated part of the code. At least in master today,
Go for it.
a) Go for it. This won't affect me, and if by chance it does, I don't
mind putting 'binary' args here and there.
b) Please wait. Mark the API as unstable in 0.10, but don't change it
until 0.12.
c) I have no opinion, because I don't use the crypto API directly.
--
b)
Remember the sys/util situation in 0.8?
1. What is the cost of keeping sys throwing?
2. What is the cost of putting it back?
This is a different type of change entirely but I think the general
idea of the questions is still applicable:
1. What is the cost of this change being made as soon
a)
(My only use of crypto is to createCredentials for tls.)
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups nodejs group.
To post to this
d) I use it a lot and find the strangeness of binary strings so dumb that
I'd rather have it changed sooner or later even if that means having to
rewrite/modify a bit of code.
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:24:36 AM UTC+2, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
Currently, the crypto module defaults to using
a) Go for it. Looks like it would have no effect on almost all of our
crypto code.
On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:24:36 PM UTC-7, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
Currently, the crypto module defaults to using 'binary' encoded
strings everywhere as the default input and output encoding.
This is
Seems pretty unanimous here. So, unless some new objection comes up
that is very compelling, let's assume that 0.10 will use Buffers by
default in crypto instead of binary strings.
Also, a streaming interface to the crypto classes is already underway.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Jimb Esser
a) go for it!
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups nodejs group.
To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com
To
No idea why the comment about warning when you give crypt binary didn't
gain more notice, but... why not make a new interface instead of changing
the current one and possibly breaking stuff?
You could eventually make the old API the same as the new (in a year?
Whenever github searches come up
Just out of curiosity, will this be the last nail in the coffin of 'binary'
encoding? At least as the default, I mean.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Isaac Schlueter i...@izs.me wrote:
Seems pretty unanimous here. So, unless some new objection comes up
that is very compelling, let's assume
On Oct 9, 6:21 pm, codepilot Account codepi...@gmail.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity, will this be the last nail in the coffin of 'binary'
encoding? At least as the default, I mean.
As a default, I'd hope so.
Last nail in the coffin totally though? I'd hope not. This particular
discussion
my vote is a), go for it
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM, mscdex msc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 9, 6:21 pm, codepilot Account codepi...@gmail.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity, will this be the last nail in the coffin of
'binary'
encoding? At least as the default, I mean.
As a default, I'd
a) do the right thing as soon as possible. It affects me, but this is such
a minor issue to resolve.
On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:24:36 PM UTC-7, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
Currently, the crypto module defaults to using 'binary' encoded
strings everywhere as the default input and output
a) times 1
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups nodejs group.
To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com
I agree. We aren't to version 1.0 yet, so anything should be fair game.
On Oct 8, 2012 7:19 PM, mscdex msc...@gmail.com wrote:
a) times 1
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this
(a) Yes, *please.* Changes in the behavior of binary strings, and the usage
of binary strings alone, has hurt me in the past.
And even if Node.js *was* version 1.0.0, that's still no excuse to not
improve the API.
It should go without saying, remember to document and announce the behavior
a. who is actually messing with crypto after the fact. I would like to know
the reasons to do so.
On Monday, October 8, 2012 6:24:36 PM UTC-5, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
Currently, the crypto module defaults to using 'binary' encoded
strings everywhere as the default input and output encoding.
a) Go for it. This will probably affect me, but I'll be happy to change
code for better
On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 10:24:36 UTC+11, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
Currently, the crypto module defaults to using 'binary' encoded
strings everywhere as the default input and output encoding.
This is
a) Go for it. API-breaking changes are somewhat expected in Node and the
quality and consistency of Node's API is one of it's strongest points. Keep
the quality high even if you make a few breaking changes pre-1.0. The
sooner the better.
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:24:36 AM UTC+7, Isaac
25 matches
Mail list logo
