Hallo,
>
> Can I suggest it's a candidate for a ServiceLoader implementation?
Agree at 100%
>
> This would mean that it can be specified by the API, but used internally
> and thus the complications associated with interacting with it are the
> problem of the implementor, rather than that of a developer using the
> library.
YES absolutely, I agree, the only thing I let in my implementation to
implementors is the signature method concrete implementation, since
the Base String is a common task.
> It would also mean that it's extremely easy to drop in additional
> signature method implementations.
>
>
> Maybe we can come back to this; can we look at the higher level API and
> work our way down?
>
Could be, even if I don't see any difficulty related to maintaining
the existing amber interfaces layer for signature APIs
Chat later ;)
Simo
> p
>
>> Simo
>>
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>
>
>
|