Martin Geisler wrote:
Janus Dam Nielsen <janus.niel...@alexandra.dk> writes:
I am not opposed to your suggestion. However I would like to point out
that in VIFF you compute on shares and not field elements!
Well, we've actually made the outer runtime interfaces in such a way
that add, mul, xor, etc... accept both integers, FieldElements and
Shares. The methods then wrap their input as needed -- or they *dont*
wrap it if that leads to a short cut (e.g., constant multiplication)
I agree (see also my answer).
Computing directly on the field elements is hacking the abstractions
of VIFF. Computation on field elements or rather the representation of
a Share can be useful as an optimization, however this optimization
should be confined within applications or runtimes, and should not
progress over interface boundaries as I fear you are suggesting.
I think we are in agreement: public methods on the runtimes will keep
returning Shares. Methods used internally in runtimes can return other
things as needed. To me it sounds like a better API to require
preprocessing functions to return a list of Deferreds:
[D(?), D(?), ...],
instead of a Deferred list of tuples containing Deferreds :-)
I think it will simplify the interface nicely, at least for consumers.
Using simpler types also leads to less memory usage which has a positive
effect on performance, as Marcel notes. So let's go for it.
So this makes 2 votes in favour of it and 1 against it. Maybe we should
have a meeting to discuss it. What do you think?
viff-devel mailing list (http://viff.dk/)