Talk:MD5/Implementation: Difference between revisions
→The original MD5 page was not enough: Unfortunately, I don't think I'm saying anything useful.
(→The original MD5 page was not enough: Unfortunately, I don't think I'm saying anything useful.) |
|||
Line 20:
: I would like to see a counterpart task, where calling out to an external implementation is a requirement of the task. Then we can migrate the original code examples and retire [[MD5]]. Otherwise, we've just crufted task and created unnecessary overlap. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 11:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
:: Mike I created this in part because I was told that the other task was too old to change. I was going to remove my code from the old task and point here. I'm for it BTW but it needs to be precisely defined. We already have tasks that call other languages, system routines, etc. How would the other MD5 task be different? What's to stop someone from calling the code they wrote here? What would be wrong with that? Just a thought. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
::: If they would ''really'' use their own pure-language implementation of MD5, then there's nothing implicitly wrong with linking to the code over here, as long as long as the "unimplemented in X" requirements are met. That's my primary concern. I'm going to back off on this, though, because every time I try to think through this, I second-guess myself, and I've got too much at work on my plate already. My reply in [[Talk:MD5]] was intended to be explanatory on the history of policies on external libraries, not as a statement on whether or not tasks could be changed or deprecated. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
== Off-site code ==
| |||