[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [pkcs11] Proposal: Define CKA_JAVA_MIDP_SECURITY_DOMAIN constants
On 24.06.2013 17:57, Michael StJohns wrote: > Hi Stef - > > My take is the general model is that CK_XXX is used for typedefs and > structs, while CKx_XXX is used for value enumerations. The fact that > the OTP stuff did this differently is an interesting point of > information, but not compelling - it actually has a few "type"ing > problems - see below. Even if we exclude the OTP stuff, CK_XXX has been used for more than typedefs, albeit not yet for enums. For example: CK_TRUE CK_FALSE CK_INVALID_HANDLE CK_UNAVAILABLE_INFORMATION CK_EFFECTIVELY_INFINITE > CKV_xxx might not be the correct prefix, but there are a number of these > small enumerations that need to go somewhere and ideally not at the top > level, but grouped and defined under an enum-like type definition. > > How about CKCC_XXX for certificate categories and CKCM_XXX for midp > security domains? In my opinion, these start to be too finicky and cluttered. -1 So again ... I would be in favor of either CKV_ or CK_<ENUM>_ (where ENUM is a name like OTP or CERTIFICATE_CATEGORY). > I don't have strong feelings on this, but if we're going to throw away > the enum model, we should do it with eyes wide open. Fair enough, and that's why I posted this question last week. Nobody responded to that email. Cheers, Stef
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]