Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
From: Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Best Home for Checksum Implementations?
References: <87a8agx1tw.fsf@v45346.1blu.de>
	<ecc9537e-accc-0401-5f0f-ded0028655ac@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 05:57:52 +0100
In-Reply-To: <ecc9537e-accc-0401-5f0f-ded0028655ac@apache.org> (Emmanuel
	Bourg's message of "Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:35:37 +0100")
Message-ID: <87fuk7d9db.fsf@v45346.1blu.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
archived-at: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:57:55 -0000

On 2017-01-24, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

> Le 24/01/2017 =C3=A0 10:08, Stefan Bodewig a =C3=A9crit :

>> I was wondering whether these implementations would belong in one of the
>> other components (as well as - rather than instead of - compress) but
>> I'm not sure where it would fit.

> What about a dedicated component for checksum implementations?

This would start with three or four implementations of which people will
probably only use a single one. Components that small feel a bit like
the npm world :-)

> It could also take over the digest package of [codec] which looks a
> bit misplaced (codec is more about bijective coding/decoding than
> one-way hashing).

Interesting idea.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org