W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > March 2014

Re: Promise return types

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 12:44:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CACvaWvYq60PAW=wXbEtaMmRoJo6JO=e0PqP2ZFLr6dYc+Kbcbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vijay Bharadwaj <Vijay.Bharadwaj@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:02:41 UTC