Hallo, > > Can I suggest it's a candidate for a ServiceLoader implementation?
Agree at 100% > > This would mean that it can be specified by the API, but used internally > and thus the complications associated with interacting with it are the > problem of the implementor, rather than that of a developer using the > library. YES absolutely, I agree, the only thing I let in my implementation to implementors is the signature method concrete implementation, since the Base String is a common task. > It would also mean that it's extremely easy to drop in additional > signature method implementations. > > > Maybe we can come back to this; can we look at the higher level API and > work our way down? > Could be, even if I don't see any difficulty related to maintaining the existing amber interfaces layer for signature APIs Chat later ;) Simo > p > >> Simo >> >>> >>> p >>> > > >
