Converse: If it's confusing, it's broken. Maintenance is a primary concern, and transparency is a primary concern in maintainable code. If someone's digging deeply enough to get confused by it, and there's inconsistency (aka obscurity) in the code that is examined when they look at it, it might be time to give the 'transparency' goal another look.
This is IMO, of course. It's also where SSLeay/OpenSSL broke. -Kyle H On 9/26/06, Nelson B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Peter Djalaliev wrote: > If ss->securityHandshake is not used anymore, maybe both functions > should set the handshake function using the ss->handshake function > pointer to avoid confusion. Also, would getting rid of the > ss->securityHandshake pointer altogether be possible, too? This would > avoid some possible confusion, too. Just an idea, there might be good > reasons (that I don't know) why this shouldn't be done... Here's one: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Given the real work load of bug fixes and requested enhancements, tweaking code that's running without any known problems just isn't a priority.
_______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
