[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 26.06.2013 19:13, Michael StJohns wrote: > For this, I'm loath to let this look like the OTP stuff, as I think that > was done in error. Part of the idea of this PKCS11 API is to be able to > project it onto other languages besides C and it would be useful if > fields that were should actually be considered as enums (or a fixed set > of values) were typed that way. Unfortunately, all we can do is use > appropriate naming conventions. For what it's worth, the PKCS#11 API is hard to bind via the automatic or semi-automatic tools as there is no simple namespace prefix for the types and constants. So using all myriad prefixes is a strike against projecting it into other languages using modern tools and techniques. But I digress... >> Should we just choose CKV_? That's the option that seems more broadly >> acceptable. In that case, will you make a proposal to update the OTP >> stuff? > > So CKV_OTP_*, CKV_MIDP_* and CKV_CERTCAT_*? Yeah, that's what I'd prefer. > Sure I can't talk you into > CKCM_ and CKCC_? It's just that these really start to be unreadable. > To table 2 we add "CKV_" "General enumerations"? (Or alternately, we > add these two prefixes.) I like this, perhaps "Miscelaneous enumerations" or "Other enumerations" Cheers, Stef
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]