I think I'm going to go with StatelessCipher for now so I don't prolong the release any more than I have to. If anyone feels differently, please comment!
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
