Do you guys think it would be easier if you can provide comments on GitHub
and we can continue there and summarize the conclusion here?
We should not lose addressing any comments.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:34 PM Pellerin, Clement <clement_pelle...@ibi.com>
wrote:
> The proposed interface does not look like the Builder pattern I am used to.
> Should SslEngineBuilder be called SslEngineFactory instead?
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019, at 03:33, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> > I would expect SslEngineBuilder interface to look something like this,
> > perhaps with some tweaking:
> >
> > public interface SslEngineBuilder extends Configurable, Closeable {
> >
> > Set<String> reconfigurableConfigs();
> >
> > boolean shouldBeRebuilt(Map<String, Object> nextConfigs);
> >
> > SSLEngine createSslEngine(Mode mode, String peerHost, int
> > peerPort, String endpointIdentification);
> >
> > }
>
