river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Brouwer <mark.brou...@cheiron.org>
Subject Re: [jira] Resolved: (RIVER-233) ComputeDigest instructions reference sha and sha1
Date Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:29:32 GMT
Fred Oliver (JIRA) wrote:
>      [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-233?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
> Fred Oliver resolved RIVER-233.
> -------------------------------
>     Resolution: Fixed
>> ComputeDigest instructions reference sha and sha1
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>                 Key: RIVER-233
>>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-233
>>             Project: River
>>          Issue Type: Improvement
>>          Components: com_sun_jini_tool
>>    Affects Versions: jtsk_2.1
>>            Reporter: Fred Oliver
>>            Assignee: Fred Oliver
>>            Priority: Trivial
>>             Fix For: AR2
>> Bugtraq ID [6325665|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6325665] 
>> The example use of the ComputeDigest tool in the class javadoc uses 'sha' as an example
algorithm when the default algorithm is later specified to be 'sha1'.  My understanding is
that sha and sha1 are the same (they certainly produce the same digest).  Perhaps it would
be better for the example to use a non-sha algorithm (or at least a non-sha1 algorithm since
that is the default).
>> ----
>> Consistenly using "sha1" should be satisfactory.

Hi Fred,

I'm working on JarWrapper and in the code and javadoc the message digest
is referenced as SHA-1, and I noticed that for ComputeDigest this is now
referred to as sha1.

I did a quick look in the complete codebase and it seems that in almost
all cases SHA-1 is used opposed to sha1. But also that there are a few
places where the following is used:


While in the javadoc it is stated that SHA-1 is used. Are we dealing
with the some 'inconsistency', if so should this be corrected. I must
admit that due to this inconsistent usage of capitals, a dash, or a
combination I never understood what the correct name is (even while it
doesn't matter in practice).

I'm all for a consistent naming of message digest algorithms and would
like to 'fix' this but maybe I'm missing some subtleties here.


View raw message