From: Jani Nikula Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:17:46 +0000 (+0200) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cli: mime node: abstract decryption and signature verification X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=35b8a18e69d8bf40588b8575aaab07362380724d;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: [PATCH 2/2] cli: mime node: abstract decryption and signature verification --- diff --git a/47/c894d66c51335e91cca4e2f24429c933423842 b/47/c894d66c51335e91cca4e2f24429c933423842 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2508d15a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/47/c894d66c51335e91cca4e2f24429c933423842 @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 503C3431FBF + for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2013 06:17:52 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.7 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled +Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id lsWizJKcXX2Q for ; + Sat, 30 Mar 2013 06:17:51 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com + [209.85.217.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 754DA431FAE + for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2013 06:17:51 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id y8so887275lbh.7 + for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2013 06:17:50 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=google.com; s=20120113; + h=x-received:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date + :message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-gm-message-state; + bh=YwB402aNrVdwymkBHHjGaGHA7+NzjjBmqWo/ZY9c2V4=; + b=csuN4FxeRHUYW1jj3fiiGwiMEON4L6zcccWa3ny87M4VzM7ofSTKII6zgwHaTaeoHu + eo6CKyCwIVmoV5yhNGrpL1/pxYj//8imXC12VmXbAtvvjXQohZGoxIg8yCPqkRlt4F5K + TdIibw2Ytyo/DsDoT/mT2LR5BfQx8rEvireGZrnQ/MSaGu4BFAlxndLVHi0sQcabtcn4 + inix1hLMmuBK4vfnBzpWYHd2fR8q3mc3QGnGK3Zg9yurMUfl6GCy05RINW4acEbNqL7R + IaQ/6DYgxDbAbuA+QAXJFbcPX9TmYQ7NaK0VjdPDLLYayrsOGW2UPGolLxJ7xfdpuSbH + U68w== +X-Received: by 10.112.155.166 with SMTP id vx6mr2867800lbb.59.1364649468625; + Sat, 30 Mar 2013 06:17:48 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw4-50df51-27.dhcp.inet.fi. + [80.223.81.27]) + by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v7sm2582962lbg.13.2013.03.30.06.17.46 + (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); + Sat, 30 Mar 2013 06:17:47 -0700 (PDT) +From: Jani Nikula +To: David Bremner , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cli: mime node: abstract decryption and signature + verification +In-Reply-To: <87k3opiz71.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> +References: + + + <87k3opiz71.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+48~gc5630bf (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.2.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:17:46 +0200 +Message-ID: <87ppyhrpqd.fsf@nikula.org> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain +X-Gm-Message-State: + ALoCoQkFSyWzlCnyMHcboy1Q1dzoQvwE0m9v+qGKIJdu8Y4oiTlVYn8ejSsE28qzN6Ec8vkK2JZG +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:17:52 -0000 + +On Sat, 30 Mar 2013, David Bremner wrote: +> Jani Nikula writes: +> +>> The code filled with #ifdef GMIME_ATLEAST_26 is difficult to +>> read. Abstract the decryption and signature verification into +>> functions, with separate implementations for GMime 2.4 and 2.6, to +>> clarify the code. +> +> This series mostly looks OK, although it's a challenge to track all the +> code movement. + +I agree it is. Personally I just tried to look at support for either 2.4 +or 2.6 at a time, and compare the old and new code paths, to wrap my +head around it. + +BTW I didn't test the 2.4 support, I don't have a system with that +anymore. + +> I'd like some way to make it more obvious to the reader which version of +> the functions they are reading (when the #ifdef GMIME_ATLEAST_26 has +> scrolled off screen). The simplest would just be a comment in front of +> each function. + +That feels a bit excessive, but perhaps that is just because I'm very +accustomed to this style of conditional build. I can add the comments. + +BR, +Jani.