Re: What happened to the CryptoOperation interface?

I've been unplugged from this group for a while, and was likewise surprised to see this development.

The new API appears to allow progressive input via the sequence<T> arguments.  But it's not clear to me as a naïve reader of this and the WebIDL spec how this would work.  Is the idea that you would somehow use generators / yield to create a dynamic sequence?  Maybe I don't understand generators that well, but that seems counter to the clear statements in the WebIDL spec that sequences are passed by value.

In any case, I don't care about losing CryptoOperation, but the spec should be a lot clearer about how progressive operations are done.

--Richard



On Sep 7, 2013, at 10:27 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote:

> This was covered on the call. The minutes from two meetings ago (if I recall correctly) should have them.
> 
> The broader discussion of partial output interfaces (such as the File API) and Streams (MSE, Streams API, ProgressPromise, etc) is happening in WebApps and you can follow there to understand the broader arguments - and concerns - of such interfaces.
> 
> The minutes should include the discussion as well, as they were discussed on the call. However, I haven't checked.
> 
> On Sep 7, 2013 7:23 PM, "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
> I was just going through the Editor’s draft dated 30 August 2013 and was shocked to find that there is no longer a definition of the CryptoOperation interface in the document.   Instead a sequence of CryptoOperationData objects are passed into the root call.  
> 
>  
> 
> I do however note that the excising was not complete as it is still included in the verify method description.
> 
>  
> 
> I completely missed the reasoning behind this.  When was this discussed either on the mailing list or in a telechat so I can go back and find the justification/reasoning behind it.
> 
>  
> 
> Jim
> 
>  
>

Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 22:06:38 UTC