Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

src: rename CONNECTION provider to SSLCONNECTION #12989

Closed

Conversation

danbev
Copy link
Contributor

@danbev danbev commented May 12, 2017

Currently the async provider type CONNECTION is used in node_crypto.h
and it might be clearer if it was named SSLCONNECTION as suggested by
addaleax.

This commit renames only the provider type as I was not sure if it was
alright to change the class Connection as well.

Refs: #12967 (comment)

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

src

Currently the async provider type CONNECTION is used in node_crypto.h
and it might be clearer if it was named SSLCONNECTION as suggested by
addaleax.

This commit renames only the provider type as I was not sure if it was
alright to change the class Connection as well.

Refs: nodejs#12967 (comment)
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added async_wrap c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. crypto Issues and PRs related to the crypto subsystem. labels May 12, 2017
@danbev
Copy link
Contributor Author

danbev commented May 12, 2017

Copy link
Contributor

@cjihrig cjihrig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. cc: @addaleax who I think requested this.

Copy link
Member

@addaleax addaleax left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This commit renames only the provider type as I was not sure if it was
alright to change the class Connection as well.

You can, if you want, but there it’s clear from context what the class is about (I think).

@refack
Copy link
Contributor

refack commented May 12, 2017

This commit renames only the provider type as I was not sure if it was alright to change the class Connection as well.

You can, if you want, but there it’s clear from context what the class is about (I think).

IMHO that it's in namespace crypto is good.

@danbev
Copy link
Contributor Author

danbev commented May 12, 2017

@addaleax @refack Good point, lets leave it as is. Thanks

danbev added a commit to danbev/node that referenced this pull request May 15, 2017
Currently the async provider type CONNECTION is used in node_crypto.h
and it might be clearer if it was named SSLCONNECTION as suggested by
addaleax.

This commit renames only the provider type as I was not sure if it was
alright to change the class Connection as well.

Refs: nodejs#12967 (comment)
PR-URL: nodejs#12989
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
@danbev
Copy link
Contributor Author

danbev commented May 15, 2017

Landed in 60f0dc7

@danbev danbev closed this May 15, 2017
@danbev danbev deleted the rename-async-connection-provider branch May 15, 2017 05:31
anchnk pushed a commit to anchnk/node that referenced this pull request May 19, 2017
Currently the async provider type CONNECTION is used in node_crypto.h
and it might be clearer if it was named SSLCONNECTION as suggested by
addaleax.

This commit renames only the provider type as I was not sure if it was
alright to change the class Connection as well.

Refs: nodejs#12967 (comment)
PR-URL: nodejs#12989
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <refack@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
@jasnell jasnell mentioned this pull request May 28, 2017
@gibfahn gibfahn mentioned this pull request Jun 15, 2017
3 tasks
@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

should this be landed on v6.x? Assuming it would be part of a larger backport of async_hooks

@MylesBorins MylesBorins added the baking-for-lts PRs that need to wait before landing in a LTS release. label Aug 14, 2017
@MylesBorins MylesBorins removed the baking-for-lts PRs that need to wait before landing in a LTS release. label Aug 17, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. crypto Issues and PRs related to the crypto subsystem.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants