W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > September 2012

Re: JS code examples for ACTION 43

From: David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Cc: Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org Working Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1675100121.905035.1346957315454.JavaMail.root@mozilla.com>


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan Sleevi" <sleevi@google.com>
> To: "David Dahl" <ddahl@mozilla.com>
> Cc: "Wan-Teh Chang" <wtc@google.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org Working Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 12:29:40 PM
> Subject: Re: JS code examples for ACTION 43
> 
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM, David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com>
> wrote:
> > I see. Do we need to specify a new event?
> 
> If we do decide not to support the "shotgun calling", then yes. As
> mentioned very early on, .processData() may not ever result in output
> - for example, when performing signature verification (which doesn't
> happen until .complete()). Being able to shotgun repeated calls to
> .processData() would be rather useful in that case.
> 
> I would suggest rather than having onProgress, we'd rename it to some
> event that is suitably ambiguous as to whether data resuled.
> onProcessed() perhaps?
> 
That sounds good. So, not only rename it but also specify that it is fired once the data is completely processed.
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 18:49:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 September 2012 18:49:02 GMT