Subject: RE: Proposed PRF changes to address Ken's comments

From: "Liqiang\(Larry\) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:01:18 -0700

I want to speak a bit for C#, the C# interface supports inheritance (I
think Java interface does too), thus you can expose this new PRF in a
subtype of the v1 interface. 

That said I am not quite convinced abstract class is superior, as some
might have claimed, than the interface. The advantage of abstract class
is that you can supply a default implementation. I am not sure it is
possible to supply a default PRF implementation.

-- Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Altman
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 12:24 PM
To: Nicolas Williams
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proposed PRF changes to address Ken's comments

Nicolas Williams wrote:

> I propose removing the Java bindings from the PRF I-D and resolving
this
> problem separately.  No, I don't like this proposal, but it's either
> that or wait to resolve the Java bindings extensibility issue first.
> 
> Nico

Can someone speak to the question of whether or not C# is going to have
similar issues?

Jeffrey Altman

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:07:51 -0400

Larry:

In Java, "classes" support inheritance, "interfaces" do not.
As I pointed out in my e-mail from last night.   There is nothing that
prevents a class that implements the GSSContext interface from also
implementing this new method.  However, before the method can be used
the reference of type GSSContext must be replaced with a reference
type that includes the new method.

Jeffrey Altman