In general, a partial implementation is better than no implementation at all.
When it comes to crypto, things are a little bit different, and we need to be more careful. What are the things that would not work from the spec? Miguel On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Martin Thwaites <monofo...@my2cents.co.uk> wrote: > Hi All, > > In my latest endeavour to get the aspnetwebstack functioning on mono, I've > found that the MachineKey.Protect and Unprotect classes aren't implemented. > > So, I've tried to put together something that would work, but not > something that meets all the information supplied on MSDN page (e.g. > framework options). > > My question is, I'm piggybacking on the MachineKey.Encrypt/Decrypt > methods, is this sufficient to be accepted by the community? > > Here's the start of what I'm putting together. > > > https://github.com/martinjt/mono/blob/mvc_fixes/mcs/class/System.Web/System.Web.Security/MachineKey.cs > > So, would a pull along these lines by accepted, or do all the requirements > of the MSDN page need to be met? > > I'm not asking for a review of the pull right now as I need to check > against coding standards, and add some more unit tests, just whether a half > baked (but working) implementation is acceptable. > > Thanks, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Mono-devel-list mailing list > Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list > >
_______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
