On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Cedric BAIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Viktor Kojouharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 14:46 +0200, Cedric BAIL wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> As it seems like a good time to break the EFL agains :-). I would >>>> like to discuss API/ABI break of eet. I am currently working on adding >>>> crypto to eet. My current code only require a key and generate the >>>> needed salt and IV for the encryption. So I need to add one more >>>> parameter (the key) to all read and write operation of eet. I have >>>> currently two possibilities, double the number of function, or just >>>> change the existing one. Of course the later solution sounds a little >>>> bit cleaner, but it will break all eet applications. >>>> >>>> A quick search of eet_open in the svn give me 43 differents file >>>> using it. Sounds like not a big deal to break it. This could be also >>>> be a good time to cleanup the parameters of >>>> eet_data_descriptor_element_add also. >>>> >>>> So guys, what do you think of this move ? >>> >>> Wasn't eet 1.0 released a couple of weeks ago? Breaking the API after >>> the supposed stable 1.0 release just screams wrong in so many ways. >> >> Yeah, I know, that's why I asked. I just don't like the idea of not >> breaking the API/ABI and adding code to work around for marketing >> issue. >> >> Just looking at the TODO. We are planning to add : >> - support for scripting langage to convert from their object type to >> eet data and from eet data to script object. >> - streaming API for both audio and video. >> >> The only draw back on switching to 2.0 branch on Eet, is that we >> currently have one standing bug covered by the test case, that I can >> find a way to fix (bug in dump/undump) and this will mean that at some >> point we will need to make another release of the 1.0 branch. > > Do we need a different key for each read/write operation? I see this > being more a key per file, in that case make an eet_key_set(ef, key) > and check for the set pointer inside read/write operations. > > the existing parameters are really one per entry, like compression.
I am not really planning to cypher all the data of the file, but just on a entry basis. So you can cypher eet data, but not picture for example. And I want to add this to eet_data_descriptor_decode and encode too. Between it will be a good time to also remove eet_data_descriptor2_new and eet_data_descriptor3_new. -- Cedric BAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
