Re: x509 Extension missing constructors

OCTET STRING is part of the extension structure - so there's a problem
telling if the ASN1OctetString would be part of the extension, or if
it's actually something that needs to be encoded in another OCTET STRING
to build the extension structure.

Regards,

David

On 12/7/19 3:12 pm, cryptearth wrote:
> Hey David,
>
> thanks for the reply. I've just checked - ASN1OctetString is a subtype
> of ASN1Encodable - didn't seen that before. Wouldn't it be smarter to
> just change the type from ASN1OctetString to its interface
> ASN1Encodable or would it break other boundaries with supertype
> ASN1Primitive?
> Also: I don't think "create" is a good name for such a method,
> getInstance maybe better. But nvm, thanks for the addition anyway.
>
> Matt
>
> Am 12.07.2019 um 02:18 schrieb David Hook:
>> I've added a static create() method. There would be a type clash with
>> the constructor with ASN1OctetString otherwise.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 11/7/19 7:55 pm, cryptearth wrote:
>>> Hi there, Matt here.
>>>
>>> As I'm building a helper class for set up and use my own PKI CA I
>>> noticed that the class org.bouncycastle.asn1.x509.Extension is missing
>>> constructors:
>>>
>>> Extension(ASN1ObjectIdentifier, ASN1Boolean, ASN1Encodable)
>>> Extension(ASN1ObjectIdentifier, boolean, ASN1Encodable)
>>>
>>> Why I think one or both of this constructors missing:
>>> org.bouncycastle.cert.X509v3CertificateBuilder has the method
>>> addExtension(ASN1ObjectIdentifier, boolean, ASN1Encodable) so it's
>>> easy to do some like this:
>>>
>>> .addExtension(Extension.basicConstraints, true, new
>>> BasicConstraints(true))
>>>
>>> For a helper it's better to have an array of type Extension to rapid
>>> add them in a loop with the method addExtension(Extension). The major
>>> inconvenience here is that to set up the array one has to write a line
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> new Extension(Extension.basicConstraints, true, (new
>>> BasicConstraints(true)).getEncoded())
>>>
>>> This involves error prone double conversion from object to byte array
>>> and back to an object just because there is now constructor taking an
>>> ASN1Encodable directly. As side note: Aside from possible error prone
>>> it looks like code smell and interrupts the code flow when reading it
>>> without knowing the lib or figure it out with doc.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance and maybe consider adding one or both constructors
>>> in next release.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>