On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 15:49 -0700, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > I appreciate your argument "but user provided!", but you seem to be > missing the core point - you're changing the syntax of an API's > arguments, in a way that breaks the previously-held pre and post > conditions. That's an API change. > > If we can't agree on that, then it's no surprise that you don't agree > with or appreciate the objections, but I'm not sure what more can be > said, or needs to be said. It seems we've reached an ideological > impasse.
Of course it's an API change. But as noted, it's an API *addition*, in that it makes something work that didn't before. The criterion for such additions should be "if it isn't a *bad* thing for that to start working". What's missing from your argument is the bit where you explain why it's *bad* for an explicitly user-entered PKCS#11 URI to suddenly start working. That was, after all, the *point* of suggesting that the existing functions should be changed to accept such. -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
