3 ms·
And then your code would still need a table mapping the string to the implementation.
by jnwatson 10y ago
And then your code would still need a table mapping the string to the implementation.
- _prometheus 10y agoyep, exactly :)
- smsm42 10y agoYes, but that's just one table - for implementations that are supported by code. I don't need the table to just understand what this hash is - only to verify it. And, if I want to add my private hash, I don't need to update shared tables and be worried some other hash would have the same ID as mine. I can just use reasonably unique string.
- LeoPanthera 10y agoBut at least you could work out the mapping in your head, without having to refer to a numeric table.
- RubyPinch 10y agoIt still needs a table, but it doesn't need consensus on what those names mean. If someone says "sha2", that doesn't mean bcrypt, after all!