Re: RFR: 8286908: ECDSA signature should not return parameters [v3]

2022-05-19 Thread Hai-May Chao
On Thu, 19 May 2022 02:01:55 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Let ECDSA's `engineGetParameters()` always return null. At the same time, >> remove the remembered `sigParams` field. One behavior change is that after >> calling `setParameter()`, one can call `init()` again with a key using >>

Re: RFR: 8286908: ECDSA signature should not return parameters [v3]

2022-05-18 Thread Weijun Wang
> Let ECDSA's `engineGetParameters()` always return null. At the same time, > remove the remembered `sigParams` field. One behavior change is that after > calling `setParameter()`, one can call `init()` again with a key using > different parameters. I think this should be allowed since we are

Re: RFR: 8286908: ECDSA signature should not return parameters [v2]

2022-05-18 Thread Hai-May Chao
On Wed, 18 May 2022 22:27:18 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Let ECDSA's `engineGetParameters()` always return null. At the same time, >> remove the remembered `sigParams` field. One behavior change is that after >> calling `setParameter()`, one can call `init()` again with a key using >>

Re: RFR: 8286908: ECDSA signature should not return parameters [v2]

2022-05-18 Thread Valerie Peng
On Wed, 18 May 2022 22:27:18 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Let ECDSA's `engineGetParameters()` always return null. At the same time, >> remove the remembered `sigParams` field. One behavior change is that after >> calling `setParameter()`, one can call `init()` again with a key using >>

Re: RFR: 8286908: ECDSA signature should not return parameters [v2]

2022-05-18 Thread Weijun Wang
> Let ECDSA's `engineGetParameters()` always return null. At the same time, > remove the remembered `sigParams` field. One behavior change is that after > calling `setParameter()`, one can call `init()` again with a key using > different parameters. I think this should be allowed since we are

Re: RFR: 8286908: ECDSA signature should not return parameters

2022-05-18 Thread Sean Mullan
On Tue, 17 May 2022 19:56:22 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: > Let ECDSA's `engineGetParameters()` always return null. At the same time, > remove the remembered `sigParams` field. One behavior change is that after > calling `setParameter()`, one can call `init()` again with a key using > different

Re: RFR: 8286908: ECDSA signature should not return parameters

2022-05-17 Thread Hai-May Chao
On Tue, 17 May 2022 19:56:22 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: > Let ECDSA's `engineGetParameters()` always return null. At the same time, > remove the remembered `sigParams` field. One behavior change is that after > calling `setParameter()`, one can call `init()` again with a key using > different

Re: RFR: 8286908: ECDSA signature should not return parameters

2022-05-17 Thread Anthony Scarpino
On Tue, 17 May 2022 19:56:22 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: > Let ECDSA's `engineGetParameters()` always return null. At the same time, > remove the remembered `sigParams` field. One behavior change is that after > calling `setParameter()`, one can call `init()` again with a key using > different

Re: RFR: 8286908: ECDSA signature should not return parameters

2022-05-17 Thread Weijun Wang
On Tue, 17 May 2022 20:27:41 GMT, Jamil Nimeh wrote: > Do the behavioral changes you've cited in the PR description warrant a CSR, > or do you feel this behavioral change is still consistent with the current > Signature API documentation? I think so. In fact, after this change, there's simply

Re: RFR: 8286908: ECDSA signature should not return parameters

2022-05-17 Thread Jamil Nimeh
On Tue, 17 May 2022 19:56:22 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: > Let ECDSA's `engineGetParameters()` always return null. At the same time, > remove the remembered `sigParams` field. One behavior change is that after > calling `setParameter()`, one can call `init()` again with a key using > different

RFR: 8286908: ECDSA signature should not return parameters

2022-05-17 Thread Weijun Wang
Let ECDSA's `engineGetParameters()` always return null. At the same time, remove the remembered `sigParams` field. One behavior change is that after calling `setParameter()`, one can call `init()` again with a key using different parameters. I think this should be allowed since we are reusing