From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: open-{gnutls,network}-stream backwards compatibility Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 20:07:47 +0200 Message-ID: <83zhsj2arw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831s5v3s9w.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1546452390 380 195.159.176.226 (2 Jan 2019 18:06:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 18:06:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Robert Pluim Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 02 19:06:26 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gekuQ-0008RS-1a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2019 19:06:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46604 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gekwW-0005eR-Iw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2019 13:08:36 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33271) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gekvu-0005c0-Jy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2019 13:07:59 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gekvr-0005Mk-F2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2019 13:07:58 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54747) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gekvq-0005LV-4I; Wed, 02 Jan 2019 13:07:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2480 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1gekvp-0005rM-OX; Wed, 02 Jan 2019 13:07:54 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Robert Pluim on Wed, 02 Jan 2019 18:47:55 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:232096 Archived-At: > From: Robert Pluim > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 18:47:55 +0100 > > So nil/t would mean :nowait nil/t, and anything else would be a > plist. Not exactly. What I meant is if that arg is _any_ symbol, it is interpreted as the old NOWAIT argument; otherwise, it has to be a plist (if not, we signal an error). > Itʼs not perfect, but I guess backwards compatibility is important. It is IMO. > >> Again Iʼm tempted to change open-network-stream such that not > >> specifying :client-certificate is the same as specifying t, so > >> that all Emacs core and external packages can take advantage of > >> the feature just by adjusting their .authinfo entries, similarly > >> to how password lookup automatically works today. However, this > >> would be a change in default behaviour, plus I know some people > >> are very sensitive to changes in this particular area, so I > >> thought Iʼd ask here before doing anything. > > > > IMO, we should resist the temptation of making backward-incompatible > > changes. From bitter experience, even obscure internal functions are > > sometimes used, and their users don't expect us to break the APIs. > > That applies to open-gnutls-stream, but I was asking about > open-network-stream. For people who have no client certificate entries > in their auth-source, there would be zero difference. Then perhaps I misunderstand your suggestion. Please tell more. (And I'm talking about those for whom this change _will_ mean some difference, not those who don't use :client-certificate.) I guess the part which is confusing me is this: change open-network-stream such that not specifying :client-certificate is the same as specifying t Doesn't this mean an incompatible change in behavior? > If we donʼt change open-network-stream, then I was planning on > changing all callers in Emacs to use :client-certificate t in any > case, so only external users of open-network-stream would need to > update their code to enable automatic use of client certificates. Itʼs > those external updates I was hoping to avoid. Now I'm even more confused.