oltu-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1583609 - in /oltu/trunk/jose/jws: ./ src/main/java/org/apache/oltu/jose/jws/ src/main/java/org/apache/oltu/jose/jws/signature/impl/
Date Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:29:54 GMT
If thiss class contains just constants you can make it as interface and skip repeated "public
static final” and also avoid checkstyle crying about constructor. :)

Cheers,
Łukasz Dywicki
--
luke@code-house.org
Twitter: ldywicki
Blog: http://dywicki.pl
Code-House - http://code-house.org

Wiadomość napisana przez Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com> w dniu 11 kwi 2014, o godz.
14:45:

> hi Simo +1
> 
> Maybe we can leave in the same bundle though. Just not in the impl package…
> 
> regards
> 
> antonio
> 
> On Apr 11, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Simone Tripodi <simonetripodi@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Tonino,
>> 
>> just few considerations:
>> 
>>> +public class JwsConstants {
>>> +
>>> +    public static final String RS256 = "RS256";
>>> +
>>> +    public static final String RS384 = "RS384";
>>> +
>>> +    public static final String RS512 = "RS512";
>>> +}
>> 
>> I'd reduce this class constructor as 'private'
>> 
>>> 
>>> Added: oltu/trunk/jose/jws/src/main/java/org/apache/oltu/jose/jws/signature/impl/PrivateKey.java
>> 
>> I wouldn't add that classes to a generic 'impl' package, they refer to
>> specific 'java.security' implementation, so I would suggest to:
>> 
>> * having them implemented in a separated module/bundle
>> 
>> * package name be renamed
>> 
>> WDYT?
>> Best,
>> -Simo
> 


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message