One more thing:
In KnownOIDs.java, I found these 2 lines:
PKIX_KP_BASE("1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3."),
PKIX_OCSP_BASE("1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48."),
IMHO, they should not belong here, at least, we should remove the dot at the
end and make them real OIDs.
I was testing the ObjectIdentifier generation and notice these two.
Thanks,
Max
> On May 1, 2020, at 5:45 PM, Weijun Wang <weijun.w...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> ObjectIdentifier.java
> ---------------------
>
> Have you thought about storing the ObjectIdentifier object somewhere?
> ObjectIdentifier.of() creates a new object each time and the conversion of
> string to byte[] might be a performance issue. We used to have a lot of
> ObjectIdentifier objects in AlgorithmId but now we only have KnownOIDs.
>
> I had a talk with Stuart and he has a suggestion that we can stuff all
> pre-calculated OID DER encodings in a long byte array in a resource file, and
> in KnownOIDs each element has an offset/length pair that point to its DER
> encoding. Also, whatever cache mechanism we use in the future, I suggest
> making "new ObjectIdentifier(String)" private and keep "ObjectIdentifier
> of(String)".
>
> SecurityProviderConstants.java
> ------------------------------
>
> public static List<String> alias(String ... aliases) {
> return Arrays.asList(aliases);
> }
>
> Probably not necessary, you can simply call List.of(...) everywhere.
>
> SunMSCAPI.java
> --------------
>
> Why not call getAliases() inside "new ProviderService" like in the other
> providers? Same in UCrypto.
>
> AlgorithmId.java
> ----------------
>
> algOID(String). You don't check "if (name.indexOf('.') != -1)" at the
> beginning anymore. Is there an algorithm name containing "."?
>
> It's a pity we have to collect OIDs from other providers. Maybe it should
> only be necessary when we use that provider, for example, when encoding a
> signature, we should ask the provider about the OID. I wish there were a
> Signature::getAlgorithmId, but if not, maybe we can rename
> Algorithm::alfOID(name) to Algorithm::alfOID(name, provider).
>
> Do you know a bad case if we don't collect those OIDs? It must be some
> algorithm that is not in the Standard Names.
>
> Overall I think the change looks great, and we have a single place to store
> all OIDs. The mapping among the OID string, KnownOIDs, and ObjectIdentifier
> could be enhanced. Do you have a benchmark?
>
> Thanks,
> Max
>
>
>> On Apr 30, 2020, at 6:59 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.p...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is the updated webrev
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8242151/webrev.01/
>
