- From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 12:44:09 -0800
- To: Vijay Bharadwaj <Vijay.Bharadwaj@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2014 20:44:36 UTC
The <any> types were actually part of the attempt to allow Microsoft (and others) to explore with other return types - such as Promise<Stream> I do think it's weird that exportKey returns the serialized JWK - rather than an object that matches a JWK definition. As I understand it, this was largely because methods can only return Interfaces, and so we would have had to define JWK interface? On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Vijay Bharadwaj < Vijay.Bharadwaj@microsoft.com> wrote: > Someone asked me a question recently that made me look more closely at > our return types for the subtleCrypto functions. Should we look at > tightening these up a bit instead of having them all be Promise<any>? > > > > Specifically, is there any reason to have exportKey and wrapKey return > Promise<any> instead of Promise<ArrayBuffer>? The way it’s set up now, it > would be very tempting for someone adding a future algorithm to, say, > return an object for the JWK export instead of serializing it first as all > the existing algorithms do. This may develop into a hassle for programmers > as they would have to track what each algorithm does for each format. >
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2014 20:44:36 UTC