Hi Sean, > I've finally had a chance to put a little more work into > gmail-crypt/openpgp.js
that's very good news. > When the framework creates errors/messages it often contains some HTML > formatting. I think we need to consider a different way of logging, perhaps > an object that contains the message, or some code for a message, and then > formatting could be a different value for that object? I think this is https://github.com/openpgpjs/openpgpjs/issues/21 > • I'm planning on adding Fortuna based key generation (probably based > off of the implementation here: https://github.com/wxfz/fortuna). This one is a bit related: https://github.com/openpgpjs/openpgpjs/issues/22 > Again, we've made great strides so far, and I'm hoping we can continue that > moving forward. I hope to find more time for this project this month - it has a great potential. Best regards, Alex On 10.01.2012, at 05:53, Sean Colyer wrote: > I've finally had a chance to put a little more work into > gmail-crypt/openpgp.js It's taking me a little bit of time to get up to > speed with using the framework but it's looking good so far. Great work > Carsten, and Recurity for getting a good platform to build on. > > I made a small commit the other day basically some small changes/bugfixes to > the keyring component. > > A couple of thoughts/questions so far: > • When the framework creates errors/messages it often contains some > HTML formatting. I think we need to consider a different way of logging, > perhaps an object that contains the message, or some code for a message, and > then formatting could be a different value for that object? > • There seems to be a number of places where when parsing/reading keys > we return an array but I'm not sure when they would be useful? There seems to > be a lot of priv_key[0] or similar for public keys. I couldn't think of a > good use case for these off the top of my head, but I could easily be > overlooking something. > • When retrieving keys from they keystore, I think they should be in > the same format as what would be returned from an openpgp.read_privateKey (or > publicKey). Any reason not to change it to work that way? > • I'm planning on adding Fortuna based key generation (probably based > off of the implementation here: https://github.com/wxfz/fortuna). I'm > thinking the best way to do this is basically to use some of the existing > methods to create an armored text and then re-read that in using the > existing openpgp calls. Thoughts? > > Again, we've made great strides so far, and I'm hoping we can continue that > moving forward. > > Sean > _______________________________________________ > > http://openpgpjs.org -- openpgpjs.org
