Alberto Valverde wrote: > Felix Schwarz wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Alberto Valverde wrote: >> > > IMO, this behavior belongs in the "validate" decorator, not in expose >> > > which is already overcrowded. >> > >> > Is expose really so big? Adding the filter would be a single line. > > I'm referring more to the "does way too many things" meaning of > "overcrowded" than "too many lines".
I had a short look at the validation method and I have to say that it isn't much shorter code-wise. Do you still think it should go into validate? If so, I can take this task and expect to publish a first patch + unit tests in 2-3 days. > If this change should target 1.0.x I would certainly put it in "expose" > in order not to break anything in the stable version. However, given > that some things are already being changed in 1.1, which will require > upgrading client code, I think that the backwards-compatibility argument > loses some weight here. Given that 1.0.4 will be published soon (AFAIK), I would propose targeting 1.1. fs
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
