On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: > Refactoring things now, so close to 1.0 would probably delay things > another few days. I think maybe instead, it would be better to rename > the existing Cipher interface to StatelessCipher and keep what we have > in place. Then, when we have the time to work out a cleaner > abstraction, we can then create a 'real' Cipher interface that can > handle stateful operations in a clean manner. > Or maybe I just spend a few days and put together a more robust > permanent solution.
I could easily see it might take more than just a few days, but if you think you could satisfactorily refactor it in a few days, I'd say go for it but time-box it. If at any point you hit a roadblock or you are unsure if the refactored interface would cover the new use cases without causing problems in the existing implementation, you could drop it and leave it for follow-up releases. StatelessCipher is a good fallback. Kalle
