> Yes, that is still my preference. OK. Thanks, Xuelei
On 4/9/2014 9:50 AM, Weijun Wang wrote: > > > On 4/9/2014 9:15, Xuelei Fan wrote: >> On 4/9/2014 8:53 AM, Weijun Wang wrote: >>> There is already getKeyType() and toString(). >> ;-) They should not lower the standards to design another good method. > > I just meant different methods serve for different purposes. > >> >>> Also I don't think >>> "kid-2014" is useful. If people really want to inspect the result, I >>> expect they would fall into the "default" or "else" block anyway. >>> >> There is a constructor to put unknown or private key type: >> KerberosKey(KerberosPrincipal principal, >> byte[] keyBytes, >> int keyType, int versionNum) >> >> Which will accept any kind of integer key type. > > Yes, this method does not need to understand the keyType to generate a > key. However, the one we are talking about now must understand the > algorithm name and call its string2key() method to generate the key from > a passphrase. So even if you provide "kid-2014", it still has to throw > an IllegalArgumentException. > >> >> I think it might be help to get the algorithm in string even if key type >> is not supported (getKeyType() is not as convenient as getAlgorithm() to >> get the string algorithm, toString() covers too much information if one >> only needs to know the algorithm). >> >> KerberosKey kk = new KerberosKey(..., 123, 0); >> String alg = kk.getAlgorithm(); // "unknown" returns >> >> KerberosKey kk = new KerberosKey(..., 124, 0); >> String alg = kk.getAlgorithm(); // "unknown" returns >> >> KerberosKey kk = new KerberosKey(..., -123, 0); >> String alg = kk.getAlgorithm(); // "private" returns >> >> KerberosKey kk = new KerberosKey(..., -124, 0); >> String alg = kk.getAlgorithm(); // "private" returns > > I would expect actual developers calling getKeyType() more often because > it's easy to deal with in Kerberos. In this sense, getAlgorithm() only > exists to override the method in Key. > >> >> At least for meaningful debug log or exception message, "unknown" and >> "private" is not as instinctive as "xxx-123" and "xxx-124". >> >> Anyway, not a big concern of mine. Please go ahead if you prefer >> "unknown" and "private". > > Yes, that is still my preference. > > Thanks > Max > >> >> Xuelei >> >>> --Max >>> >>> On 4/9/2014 7:57, Xuelei Fan wrote: >>>> Looks fine to me. >>>> >>>> I was wondering, whether it is a little bit more instinctive to >>>> return a >>>> string with the type number for "unknown" and "private" algorithm in >>>> KerberosKey.getAlgorithm(). For example: >>>> >>>> "unknown" -> "kid-2014" >>>> "private" -> "kid-(2014)" >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Xuelei >>>> >>>> On 4/8/2014 10:37 AM, Weijun Wang wrote: >>>>> Hi All >>>>> >>>>> Please review the code changes at >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8035986/webrev.00/ >>>>> >>>>> It's about using IANA names in KerberosKey instead of old non-standard >>>>> names. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Max >>>> >>
