Re: Priority strings

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Nikos,

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <address@hidden> writes:

> You could use something like that:
> NONE:+VERS-TLS-ALL:+CIPHER-ALL:+MAC-ALL:+SIGN-ALL:+COMP-ALL:+ANON-DH

OK, thanks!

>> Besides, while the old method was more verbose, it allowed 
>> programming errors to be spotted more easily (in the Guile bindings, 
>> you would get a type error if trying to use a MAC name when setting 
>> the cipher priority, for instance.)  Could it coexist alongside 
>> priority strings?
>
> No the old priority functions will be marked as deprecated and may be
> removed. I cannot understand though how the error you describe apply
> to that interface.

This is what I had in mind:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
scheme@(guile-user)> (define session (make-session connection-end/client))
scheme@(guile-user)> (set-session-mac-priority! session (list 
cipher/aes-128-cbc))
ERROR: In procedure set-session-mac-priority!:
ERROR: In procedure set-session-mac-priority!: Wrong type argument in position 
2: #<gnutls-cipher-enum AES-128-CBC>
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Priority strings are handy, but they are less expressive and make it
harder to diagnose programming errors, IMO.

Thanks,
Ludo’.