[Cryptography Team] [Vm-dev] Smalltalk code calling SHA2Plugin
Chris Muller
ma.chris.m at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 18:16:24 UTC 2020
Yes, that is one use-case, but another is when you want an actual SHA256,
regardless whether the plugins are loaded, or not. For its test cases, for
example. So, were #new to become the factory method, it would spoil the
API for THAT use-case.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:47 PM Robert Withers <robert.withers at pm.me>
wrote:
> Hi Levente,
>
> I must admit, after reflection, that I LIKE that SHA256 new may return a
> different class. Essentially, the #new method of SHA256, in this scenario,
> will be the factory method, instad of HshFunction newSHA256. This factory
> method may return a pluginized SHA256 concrete subclass or itself as
> default. The reason I like this is that we would reference the "abstract"
> class specific to the hash algorithm as SHA256, exactly the same lexeme.
>
> In our current case, the SHA256 is also a concrete class, the default when
> no plugins around. If this duality of SHA256 being both abstract and
> concrete, is an issue, we could copy SHA256 to SHA256InImage and then have
> a proper strict abstract class. This is my feeling that opposite of
> creating confusion it specifies the Lexeme of this hashFunction and so
> clarifies.
>
> Newbie: "How do I use SHA256?"
>
> Wise Council: "Code it as SHA256 new. Then send hashStream: to it.".
>
> Jester: "Watch out it is tricky picky. It may return an instance of a
> DIFFERENT concrete class....correctly so.
>
> my 2 pennies,
>
> Kindly,
> rabbit
> On 7/21/20 9:56 PM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, Robert wrote:
>
>
> Hub Levente,
>
> I like the idea of SHA256 and friends to throw an exception when #new is called directly
> SHA256 new.
> With a message to call newSHA256.
>
> What do you think?
>
> I think #new should return an instance of the receiver. That's what
> everyone expects when #new is sent to a class, isn't it?
> And if #new raised an error, what would #newSHA256 send to create an
> instance? #basicNew + #initialize? I don't like that.
>
>
> Levente
>
>
> Kindly,
> Robert
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 14:02, Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu> <leves at caesar.elte.hu> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020, Chris Muller wrote:
>
> > Hi Levente,
> >
> > > > HashFunction newSHA256
> > > >
> > > > instead of
> > > >
> > > > SHA256 new
> > > >
> > > > in order to take advantage of Levente's plugin.
> > >
> > > That is indeed some sort of a change but it only affects those who
> > > compiled the SHA256Plugin themselves since that plugin wasn't shipped with
> > > the VM.
> >
> > Ah, you're speaking about legacy code. I really hope we can include your plugin in future VM's. Are Eliot, et al, on board?
>
> The most recent VMs ship with the plugins.
>
> > > I decided against the practice of making #new return an instance of
> > > another class than the receiver, as it was with the previous
> > > implementation, because that makes it a lot harder for others to
> > > understand the code.
> >
> > Hm. I sort of agree, although I guess Factory is a recognized pattern. To me, the issue is that writing
> >
> > "SHA256 new"
> >
> > , is a perfectly intuitive and obvious way to use it, but sticking out like a sore thumb as a subversively-wrong-way to-use-it. It'd be better if it threw an error, and even better than that if it just worked.
> >
> > I know you care about the quantity of methods in the image (as do I), how about quality? Can SHA256 #new be improved by doing essentially what HashFunction #newSHA256 does, and simply sending some alternative
> to new (i.e.,
>
> It's not clear what do you mean by caring about the quantity of methods.
>
> > basicNew initialize) to avoid the recursion?
>
> That would do exactly what I do not want to do: #new would return an
> object whose class is not SHA256.
>
> >
> > Above, you mentioned you decided against the practice, does that mean you're writing:
> >
> > SHA256 newSHA256
> >
> > ? If not, how did you do it?
>
> Use HashFunction's class side #new* methods to create the instances.
> HashFunction is a facade and a factory at the same time.
> I originally wanted to create a separate class for this role named Hasher,
> but HashFunction seemed to work just as well.
>
>
> Levente
>
> >
> > Thanks again for this great work.
> >
> > - Chris
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 9:55 PM Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu> <leves at caesar.elte.hu> wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, Chris Muller wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Robert and Levente,
> > >
> > > Yes, I *think* so! I'm just now getting up to speed after reading
> > > that epic thread between you and Levente (subject line: "SHA512 squeak
> > > implementation"). Thanks a ton to both of you, BTW, for this work!
> > >
> > > After loading
> > >
> > > ProCrypto-1-1-1
> > > and ProCryptoTests-1-1-1,
> > >
> > > all 205 tests are passing, however, it took me a bit to realize I need to use
> > >
> > > HashFunction newSHA256
> > >
> > > instead of
> > >
> > > SHA256 new
> > >
> > > in order to take advantage of Levente's plugin. This is great, thanks again!
> >
> > That is indeed some sort of a change but it only affects those who
> > compiled the SHA256Plugin themselves since that plugin wasn't shipped with
> > the VM.
> > I decided against the practice of making #new return an instance of
> > another class than the receiver, as it was with the previous
> > implementation, because that makes it a lot harder for others to
> > understand the code.
> >
> > >
> > > Quick side question: Is it okay to reuse a SHA256 instance, or should
> > > I just create a new one for each and every message to hash?
> >
> > All subinstances of HashFunction are reusable. The tests
> > (see HashFunctionTest) do exactly that.
> >
> >
> > Levente
> >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 6:02 AM Robert Withers <robert.withers at pm.me> <robert.withers at pm.me> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hey Chris,
> > >>
> > >> Did this approach fix your issues?
> > >>
> > >> Kindly,
> > >> rabbit
> > >>
> > >> On 7/13/20 11:46 PM, Robert wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Chris,
> > >>
> > >> You should only need to run #3, which will load Registers. Hasher was from before we integrated the code into ProCrypto-1-1-1.
> > >>
> > >> Installer as project: ‘Cryptography’; install: ‘ProCrypto-1-1-1’.
> > >>
> > >> Then to load tests run:
> > >>
> > >> Installer as project: ‘Cryptography’; install: ‘ProCryptoTests-1-1-1’.
> > >>
> > >> Let us know if any tests fail and we can look into it.
> > >>
> > >> Kindly,
> > >> Robert
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 19:52, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Robert, hi Levente,
> > >>
> > >> I would like to utilize the latest crypto in my next project, would
> > >> you help me with the current proper way to configure my image, and my
> > >> vm with plugins?
> > >>
> > >> (image)
> > >> In going back through some recent messages on the mailing lists and
> > >> instructions on squeaksource.com, I came across these incantations as
> > >> current ways to load the image code:
> > >>
> > >> 1) Installer ss
> > >> project: 'Registers';
> > >> install: 'Registers';
> > >> project: 'Hasher';
> > >> install: 'HAHasher-Core';
> > >> install: 'HAHasher-Tests'.
> > >>
> > >> 2) Installer ss
> > >> project: 'Registers';
> > >> install: 'Registers';
> > >> project: 'Hasher';
> > >> install: 'HAHasher'.
> > >>
> > >> 3) Installer ss project: 'Cryptography'; install: 'ProCrypto-1-1-1'.
> > >>
> > >> I like these one-click-for-everything scripts for crypto -- it
> > >> satisfies the good use-case of development and education, and also
> > >> knowing all what's available to Squeak in one glance. My app's build
> > >> script can cherry pick what it needs, but any advice on which starting
> > >> point above or otherwise is appreciated.
> > >>
> > >> (vm)
> > >> I put the SHA2Plugin.so from Roberts dropbox in the lib directory,
> > >> and it shows up as a "Loaded VM Module" in About Squeak. But, three
> > >> of the "WithPluginTest"'s are failing. My OS is linux_x64. I don't
> > >> know how to build Squeak or plugins from sources, but including it in
> > >> the standard precompiled vm would be so pertinent for Squeak today,
> > >> IMO. SHA256 is one of the ones I'm going to need, so would be nice to
> > >> have it work via plugin. I assume it's a lot faster?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:52 PM Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu> <leves at caesar.elte.hu> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Robert,
> > >>>
> > >>> With yesterday's help from Eliot and Nicolas, the SHA2Plugin is ready:
> > >>> http://squeaksource.com/Cryptography/CryptographyPlugins-ul.19.mcz
> > >>> The updated version of the image-side code is available in the Hasher
> > >>> repository. You can install it with:
> > >>>
> > >>> Installer ss
> > >>> project: 'Registers';
> > >>> install: 'Registers';
> > >>> project: 'Hasher';
> > >>> install: 'HAHasher-Core';
> > >>> install: 'HAHasher-Tests'.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Levente
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Robert,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please have a look at:
> > >>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2020-March/207851.html
> > >>>> It answers all your questions.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Levente
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Robert wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Levente,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I got the SHA2Plugin built and deployed to my Crypto plugins folder. Now I
> > >>>> am trying to figure out how to call it from SHA512.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yhv253rwrhq0q5p/AAB7PKP2KPiGpDnIyule2h_Ia?dl=0
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [plugin] I looked at it and please understand I think the classes you wrote
> > >>>> and the framework is really quite nice. I am thrilled we found SHA512! It's
> > >>>> impressive that your one plugin can handle a number of hash functions!
> > >>>>> Now all I need is to find the code that calls the SHA2Plugin. Levente,
> > >>>> would you share that code, please?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Kindly,
> > >>>>> Robert
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20200722/c8b9e8be/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Cryptography
mailing list