.Net Foundation Design Reviews, 10 Oct 2019

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: .NET Design Review: .NET Core 3.1

Description

00:00:00 - Approved: Add file and directory creation methods that take an ACL https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/41614#issuecomment-540773661
00:17:27 - Approved: Port `MemoryMappedFileSecurity` and add extensions for `MemoryMappedFile` https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/41654#issuecomment-540781324
00:31:52 - Approved: Add pipe creation extension methods that take an ACL https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/41657#issuecomment-540786760
00:41:46 - Approved: Add Mutex, Semaphore, and EventWaitHandle creation extension methods that take an ACL https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/41662#issuecomment-540790209
00:50:12 - Approved: Readonly members in Drawing primitives https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/pull/40407#issuecomment-540800566

A

So changed in its first, he shot by I want that again and Chuck's got the first PR up there streaming binary operators.

A

B

A little bit all right so now we are live so alright. So here is the thing you want to walk us through it Jeremy all.

C

Right so these are all related they're related to a clean on Windows. The first one here is around directory and files. You know ackles at least the current.

C

The model that we have on my desktop is clearly a window specific thing and dude the way things are factored and the applicability of this to two units we shuffle as much of this off into separate assemblies, and we added some methods for each of the Ackles that are brought up in each of these for API proposals that allow you to get and then modify the Akal or the relevant object. This case directories your files, but we did not provide any functionality to provide an Akal when creating objects, in this case directory files.

C

That has shown up as a problem primarily for from a stability standpoint.

C

If you're in the case that came up from an internal group was the you create a directory and then Akal it right after you create it right. Every now and then you're gonna butt heads with like the antivirus yeah.

D

C

You can't set the tackle until the antivirus has let go of it. So if there's a security exception, you need to add either retry logging for that sort of thing or the right term. King votes to deal with it, and so the the proposal here well, one thing we could do is we could have the api's back right.

C

That's not feasible, primarily because some of these things across this this layer live down, Cortland, filestream, being the notable one in this case right.

E

C

We added the stuff back to filed stream. We would have to bring down a pretty big closure security stuff. That's not it's! It's Lindo specific right, so the presumption is that that's not really tenable. So the option is to follow the same pattern. We've done, which I see the existing ones that are down at the bottom, where you get set access control, except knowing ad creation that that's right, that will give you back a file screen or getting back a directory or create a directory or great.

C

If I was going to be back, if I was going to and Akal already set on it in one operation and.

D

Implementation wise: what is a plan? This would duplicate functionality, or this would somehow look at it like. What is the plan does so.

C

In this particular case, the you know, there's you know we have a file system class. That's like windows in and unit specific one is that we would base. We would include that code and both- or at least some portion of that in both of these, because the logic for directory creation is somewhat complicated as far as the error handling on it and it's the existing directory creation code. This is first concrete example is already sets the ackles.

C

It just sets it to an empty one, so it will just be combative, including the same source code and allowing you to provide the I mean internally per on something allowing you to provide the vehicle. If you have it, maybe security object so and the same there'd be a little bit of more we're factoring. We need to be done to share the same code to create the handle for file Street, but then we would then use the file screen constructor with a handle that we got.

D

Sorry, can you scrub a little bit what classes is proposed to be on its.

C

Proposed to be on me, the existing Akal extensions for this one so yeah, my cursor, the.

B

Second screen: in order to do this yeah so yeah, it's possible! Yes, so.

D

I understand the argument for why these wouldn't exist in Corle it, but system IO would not file it's the system. I own file system, DLL, well, I, wouldn't the create here just being overload well.

C

We would have, we would have to add this to a file system. We haven't done that this is file system at this access control, where this one is right.

D

C

It's it's well, we could technically do it for directory. Look. It seemed to be or tag it on on file itself.

B

We have any existing echo ApS, it just yieldeth paths or are they always dealing with directory and flows and filing fees? Today, that's low family, no.

C

The for disk stuff yeah, it's it's directories and files. So.

B

There's Northern Aggression in the sense that unfamiliar kind of derivative paths that always have to take the path convert it into directory info file info and then do the Equus that one you're creating an object of oh yeah directories and files. The.

C

Same thing, yeah, so.

D

Is the idea here that this lives in this assembly.

C

Yes, in the existing system, my own file system access control, I, see, we've got a couple. Others someone's like that for some of these other ones as well, so.

B

This would not change, and independence is correct. This would offer I.

C

B

You to create methods, things and.

C

One of the advantages.

B

Of those things.

C

That look, we can build a that standard. You can go for that standard for this, so that allows people that are porting to still build net standard libraries that do that.

B

So how do we, but back to the point that Stephen was bringing up so implementation was? What does that mean? What are the implement the create method without calling in two columns version of filing for.

D

C

D

Location, we compile in two different places right in one place, we add additional stuff.

C

To it yeah- and it's not it's not a huge amount of code and like within this case, with file stream like we would then pass it back with the biosphere has a constructor that takes a handle, so it would just be a matter of creating the handle and then passing it back to file stream on the other method, a little bit of extra like due diligence to make sure that we're matching the same sort of irrigation.

C

So we already have.

F

Like because you're making an extension method on file security for the last one like is there already an instance method and framework on file security that creates a file? Are you inventing a.

E

F

Here it's me, yeah I, don't think of this like doing it as an extension method on file security feels very unnatural to me. Yeah, like the file create API that you're overloading takes the policy take like. Essentially, we won't file dot, create just it means to live somewhere else. So I think that they should really just be on a new class and not like same assembly. Fine, but like they should be a class that is like the first classes and for creating stuff with well. There were, there were two I.

C

Think we can do that as well and I. Think I discussed it down below briefly or here up in the top, but like I, do think that there is value from the discoverability perspective, because I think people are starting with a security object and they can kind of find their way into. This I mean.

D

How do they do it today, though? Don't they use an overload of directory info not create or something yeah.

C

What for Oh for the exist for the people on.

D

The distributed directory in fro yeah.

C

They do it, they do it on a wall directory and phones on directory info.

F

Okay, so directory info, if directory already has directory info dot, create it takes the thing and that's fine you're, making the same API, it's the it's. It's the file, security, one that isn't yeah, I, guess I'm.

F

D

I guess I'm wondering why why did the last two overloads need to exist at all the.

C

D

Therefore, here, why do those? Why do the last two need to exist at all all right, can't you do them with the first two.

F

They're the ones that take string instead of the info. Yes right,.

D

But I can always create I can always say new file info right, yeah.

C

So you know, technically you don't need the second ones. It was more about like just yeah that avoids you forever. You created another allocation, but there's so much going on. You know it's not there's. There's.

D

A ton of work happening here, I think that allocation be a drop in the bucket and I agree with Jeremy. If the concern is not having a good place to put these, and so we're putting them on as extensions off of these security objects that don't ya.

A

D

With things to find in there anyway, yeah I would rather just not have those at all well.

C

We can, we could look at the other ones. Lon I'm not hell-bent on having those either but I. Think.

F

That fits with the rest of them. Well it if, if there's in framework, if we already have an instance method on directory info called create that takes a directory security, then that is the same line of code. Your reference, this new assembly, when you go from framework, decor everything like the same code, you wrote this works, but.

G

Nobody's going.

F

To have ever written a thing that said final security, dot create file, so we're inventing a new thing here. The invented new thing shouldn't be well. They.

C

Do have this thing right now they.

F

C

Final events replacing is filed what we write. Ideally, what we'd have is a static extension method and I could put it on file and directory right.

F

Or is it a mile into a directory poker right but since.

C

That's what is requested on those.

F

Types already and not an extension method on those types already if we want the ones that take a string path instead of a file info or directory info, those should be non extension, static methods on they type, that is described alike, filed.

D

That would just compile with the above to extend methods there.

E

Is no code I could.

D

Currently have that would compile with the latter two.

B

Correct I mean I would even spin in another way like if you ignore compact for for a moment, I, don't think we would ever create a method on valid security, actual security that would create the thing and I think. If we were to create those api's, it would probably make them pure static methods and I mean yes, I can see file system, echo extensions, dot, create something being a very attractive. You know home for that, but then people probably just create a static help our somewhere.

B

That would have a nice name and it would use that one but I, don't think it would ever I. Think. Generally speaking, we should never add an extension method, but we wouldn't have ever added the the instance method into the same place, because it just feels very arbitrary. Just to give the API home yeah.

C

It was all great and kind of like the thing I was asking for here was like I need the extension methods on static classes. Then.

F

It would be able to wind up, will be nice, wouldn't it yeah I mean yeah, since, since we can't do that, one like the easiest suggestion is I keep the top to drop the bottom. Two and I agree with that, and we we.

C

Can add, we've had the dirty the the not-so-pretty class. That's sitting up. Some of those are people to be honest, I, don't even think we need that on some pretty class, just go with the first two, why you agreed if I'm saying I'm saying if they, if they have somebody comes back with an argument with it that like seems convincing, then we can go.

B

C

Somewhere else, yeah yeah all.

B

Right, that seems, you know anything else to say about this.

F

Doesn't seem like it, so let's just take this and then I guess just to confirm this is aside from the fact it's an extension method. The top two are completely signature, equivalent to something a diamond framework.

C

Yes, so I copied and Frances.

E

There is the same thing: the.

C

Thing I did not do is I did not. I did not like at every overload sure I just did the lemon the longest. One and you'll see this in the neck, one of the other ones I put like default values on some of them. That.

F

Had that concept making sure we didn't change like if somebody did it with naming parameter invocation that they will get exactly the same, if they were calling the long wooden, it will still work. We didn't reorder anything, we didn't change the casing of any parameter names. We, we are just matching the thing, but now it's an extension method and.

C

I didn't go all out either. I didn't like add, create sub directory, which is another one that we have on directory info. I could.

D

Mess I mean that's a great subject just to help right, yeah.

C

So the I didn't like to I didn't try to be turing-complete. I tried to address I tried to have an API that would allow everybody to change to that API, and if people were using most cases, they would just be able to include this.

C

But there are some exceptions: I didn't want to create a different thing, so I think I'm. Just my.

F

My position was looks good, assuming it's the same signature, so that I'm, instead of assuming good.

C

F

Sorry I gave you more responsible. One didn't want to be full disclosure there.

C

B

Right so what I've done I just wrote, everything down, I just said: okay, we don't we want those, we do not want those and then what Jeremy just said like in terms of order whatever alright. So then it's o go with this one.

C

So if you don't know already ackles and windows or the singing for everything as far as like underlying stuff, so this is just going through all the rest of the apples. So you know, Windows is object-based at its core at an object manager and everything uses the same security and in this one I don't know if it derived yeah. This one derives from the generic like what was we once we had generics? We actually created a generic base class.

C

This is the only one that derives from the generic one, but all the other ones could have three that had generics in the beginning. So this I go through the rest of them. In here there was one that I didn't do that we actually did pour in them was registry, because registry was already window specific, so we actually did port those full api's when we did the registry DLL.

C

So if there is the echo is that yes, there was a registry icon and what's the same way as all the other things but I think in China registry. Yes,.

B

They are because the registry itself.

C

With specific to Windows, we had no reason to not yet.

B

C

It so so this one we did not port the Akal itself, so the memory map file security and really it does nothing other than derive from object security. There's no real code in that and there's a there's a flag. So we didn't port those since it suggests as we deport those and- and we add them to the file system. Apple.

C

Oh sorry, too,.

C

The same system, I own file system, died.

C

That, what's the name of it, access control so and add more to that same class for memory in that file, it's I mean because it's still it's still, it's still a file. It's.

F

The feedback here is gonna, be the same as the other one of we didn't have. There is no memory map file security that create from file, so you should not make it extension so.

C

We got a give me only come up with a name: I would still want to put it inside of the file system, dot access.

F

Control new the assembly is good, it's just like once you have to invent a new call pattern. It should be the call pattern we want it to be in this I. Don't think if the call pattern we want it to be, because.

E

It's an extension.

F

Method for convenience, but not against or out of the way we design the API and then yeah.

C

This is one word: it's like there is no there there, all the all the creation for these or static methods yeah. So my like.

F

My immediate suggestion and I think the funny memory mapped file Akal as the class that just that creates these, contains these creates or actually.

C

F

Letters to your code and then it works, I think.

C

It's I think we could put them on memory map file, although it's kind of weird yeah, that's weird, because, like good the memory of islets there's the constructions for these or a static or static. In fact, you know they're Shack factories on memory met file right. So that's. It would just be weird to make you create a member in that file to do this so.

B

Can I finish this up spawn system, eklund extensions lives in system, I/o, dot file system right, then we met positives in system, I'll memorize. What this means that we had a dependency from that echo stuff to never met files, because that doesn't exist today, right.

C

No, you would just you would have to include this if you wanted to use this security, that's all just like you do with the file system. So.

B

No I'm saying file system today, wherever the system and extensions type lives, transitively does not dependent anywhere fons today. It won't because we.

C

Did not we did not pull the rights in so they would.

B

Have to if it's returning the instance yeah.

C

Yeah, so it would have a dependency on earth right.

F

So if memory met file is already its own package, then why don't we just add these on? They were in flat because we would be pulling in the security dependencies. Sorry I guess dismember gonna file work on things other than Windows. Yes, that would be one and.

C

Yes, it would add a dependency, we could add another assembly for it. I guess like trying to avoid that. I didn't think this through obviously I mean.

B

There will be there to me the questions like how happy I will of the closure that is added to the existing file system. Actually extensions, one, the goddess of the name of the time I, think I, one of the but I would prefer, is coming up with a naming convention. I got on a minute file, echo or something and then have the static helpers on that guy other than having them instance, not sure that I agree with that part. Like some memory, my file on a goal.

B

Yeah me it's not pretty bit I mean necklace, are not pretty to begin with.

C

We call it well, it's Mary, not files secured, and do we want to match the same name, every phone. You don't use Akal in any of our terms. It just happens to be what it's called. Well, let me have it a good.

B

Feeling the tiger crayon, the on me.

H

Already have the echo just a minute: okay, we introduced them in the cooler.

C

They already burned that bridge. Sorry, my bad, the.

I

Existing security.

C

Stopped trying to abstract it away like it wasn't like a window specific thing yeah, but.

F

We're being very honest with this, it is a window specific thing, yes, and so I think that on these that you know making the static entry point for the ones where you can specify the where you can specify the Akal just making. It seems.

B

Reasonable and what's nice about this is the very simple naming convention and you can pretty much predictive of the existing types of this capabilities, so Maria Farkle we as.

C

A general pattern: do we do like help her or anything like that as like as suffixes, or that they.

B

All empty words right.

C

B

I mean utility helper base, yeah.

C

It's always awkward, I, just wanna ask, and so then so memory, so the so good with memory map file Akal as the static class that has the what Mason will we put this in same.

I

C

Where were word Moreno file security? Well then,.

F

We might clouds, you know, put it in that should be in the same so that same.

E

F

Like yeah, you get a compile error. You had three three letters in the static invocation call way. We don't say: I have to have the dependency but yeah sure I. Think the dependency in this case is yeah. Yeah tools would already suggest it because they would see were titled.

C

On Titan that.

F

Only existed in that package, okay do.

C

We build the other one. Is that standard? So what do we build on that standard version? Never in that would be right. Would they be hard to do because this one is non-standard? You still haven't fix that certificate anymore, but why.

B

Is that a problem, because.

C

I don't know I'm just.

E

B

Printed I mean you're, basically editing API servers where the implementation would be when there's no but I think that, like so referencing the other assembly, I mean it same as registry right, you can write, you can add reference, you can reference registry from next an address. My memory mapped file. We can always.

F

Say either this in net standard DLL, so you must have a net standard implementation somewhere. Okay, yeah.

C

Trying to make sure I'm not being mental here yeah like I, don't add a dependency that makes it that we can't build non-standard.

B

Through this, no.

C

B

Api surface like this, where, basically you just wrap invokes, you can always expose Center. That's pretty simple sure what is harder is if what you have a managed API closure that you can't express in a Senate like let's say one or tapi, or something like that right, then that point: do you just you're, depending on them, as somebody that isn't nuts doesn't have enough standard implementation right, yeah, which you can't do right, but not get you in this case it would just.

E

Sound like there is.

B

A next an ordeal in the internet standard reference assembly, for then we may have to file our goal and then the implementation would throw yeah and then you've another implementation, that is for Windows. That doesn't right. That's.

C

Why you wouldn't want that so all right, so it added stole the file to a file system access control and put it in in the memory map file named space with under her memory, mapped file, Apple methods, unless you.

F

C

F

Better name Steve.

D

F

G

It makes you just copy and paste with it, but we just said so. You may actually just.

D

To double-check, that name is non-existent: I, don't.

I

Think so good question: if it does, they would put a pin in there there's.

F

Memory mapped file, access, an enum, but there's no tackle.

F

Partially because Jeremy said I, don't think, we've called anything a colons told me yeah until the file system and ethical extensions and the other ones before so.

B

What do we do with get access control? Probably those would remain extension methods right, because that would make sense that makes you school donors. So look at the last two months. They me make sense of extension methods. Yes,.

C

Although we would put them and they can live in that same static class right, the new one they visited me once we talked about it and we put them on the same time.

B

Yeah, this is one of the pet peeves, a half of naming things as extensions is that you, you basically burn this type name to only be extension methods, because if you ever want to call it static directly, it seems very awkward to say blah blah blah extensions dot, something right and yeah. That's why Congress don't matter file? Echo know you can use it for static sekolah set as well as extension methods, and it looks.

C

So yeah this one, there is no way to set security.

C

F

This one is different than the others, because we just redid we've imported yeah, but the set access, control and get access, pool, control, art instance, methods on yes, yes,.

C

She's, just pointing out that this is the only one where there is no options. Yep.

F

C

Well, outside of looking.

C

F

Anything we can do, somebody else can do.

F

They can do anything differently to me.

G

Alright I'm just slow attacking notes.

E

F

To play devil's advocate now that we've reviewed this one and we're adding memory map file a code that we want file Akal for the file creates, or should we just leave it as the extension, but the final in phone directory info yeah.

B

That's one of the reasons why I push Jeremy to put them all up, so whatever pattern we invent, we can actually apply consistently because I, don't like this. Oh yeah, he butchered something as an extension method, so that kind of makes sense, but over here we couldn't. So we have this other weird pattern in mind, so I I think even they already have file system echoed extensions and the ones we currently have make sense of the extension methods. I think it's it's not too bad. Well,.

F

I wanted to avoid ones like the one that we.

B

Said we've Italy further: oh yeah we can. We could introduce an echo type and put some aesthetic helpers. Do that mean this would be if somebody actually cares, but they give them. The DPI never existed like I. Don't think anybody, okay, so.

C

That I does exist and then it takes a string, bond file and directory. So.

E

Where does API exist today on file and directory static system, I/o files or.

B

The actual aesthetic method, okay- and that case we could have father call direct to echo that put them there yeah, but it's it since you already have to change your.

C

Code attitudes, yeah, went up, did crane directory yeah.

B

H

We can defer.

B

Those until somebody.

H

Can say doodle.

C

Solve as much as possible without solving every way to do it. Yes,.

H

C

Real party, when we break down 500,000 @api.

H

G

All right so then,.

C

Do I do these things without.

F

C

Wouldn't be system.

F

Aisle in this case, this was the basic system. Io memory mapped files. Are there that you just did what you said or you did what we all said. Instead of what we all did, I, don't.

G

Want to hide the comment: it's not that bad yeah, it's just in my memory. Let me actually copy faces. Oh.

C

We're creating a new something I thought we weren't going to what.

G

We did no, no we're just creating.

C

A new type of the things we were going to introduce the dependency. We check to make sure that the other one was.

B

But what does it mean? No, when you deploy to Linux, didn't me save it didn't want this. We don't avoid Linux. This whole assembly only works on Windows.

F

But what is this assembly in your world file system access, controlled, yellow.

B

So that's what that's! What asked earlier doctor file system access control to date doesn't depend on your thoughts. I will keep adding that dependency. That's why? Yes, so every about files come from that standard! It's effectively over there. Oh I can't okay! In that case,.

F

Inside core, it may be a different DL, but like as far as anybody's really concerned. It's.

F

The link our entry shaker.

I

All right so I.

B

C

Let's hurry I'm a.

H

C

Bit I need to fix the ordering, because those securities actually think oh yeah. We ordered them in order only to put the because it was the the 70 there that it's not dead. Last and.

C

F

Should match the signature from memory-mapped file in that framework? Doesn't have the word act with.

G

Can you edit my Cohen's.

I

B

Let it my comments, while I made it in the company, but should.

E

C

Resolution in like.

G

I, like your confidence on get up.

B

Alrighty so then we have this one. Next, one.

C

Pipe, we don't have any like pipe. We actually have the the we have an assembly already or, and it's in system I, hope, I. Don't know why we didn't do differently in this case, but because we provide pipes, have.

I

C

Extensions we'd be adding next one. Actually, no.

D

H

C

If I said we don't have to do so.

F

Weird, so we thought we.

C

Need to add a pipe.

F

C

You kragle create like what is this pretending to be.

F

Is it pipe dot create anonymous places? Point yes,.

C

So we need that, do the same to me: do the other on a provide height, sample clients, static class in this case and it'll, throw on UNIX, because this we provide this one to vote is it? Is it plate, don't see a pipe taken? No, it's.

C

Or no they're on both their own and it's fill down anonymous pipe.

C

There's an honest pipe there on an honest, pipe service, dream and main pipe service tree. Actually, that's where the constructors are okay,.

F

So then anonymous might kinda scream apple. Not so did one for both clauses. Yeah I mean again the the pattern. Is you had the code working and dotnet framework? You moved to dotnet core, you add three letters now you're done, I agree. So same method, name same parameter,.

C

Ordering sorry, the naming for pipes, awkward.

C

Now we've made it more confusing further.

E

These are just step.

F

This is the thing you go to the hardware store for it, and the other thing is that contestant I.

C

Remember the first reviews, for that was the one thing I asked.

C

H

C

Did you really expect this group to come up with a good name come on.

F

So is it so do you do you need it for the anonymous what anthem they won, or just the name ones both okay? So you need four methods. What well because then there's two brain work. There is anonymous: pipe server stream and anima spike clients, dream, name, type, server stream and name plan, client stream, I. Don't.

E

Think the other.

F

Ones take out their clients tree cackles, okay, so you just need so it's name pipe server stream, eckle not create yes, a nas.

C

Pipe server, so only the server stream has the actor woman.

F

I'm pretty sure that these Finch, but they.

H

Also, constructors.

F

H

F

Methods on those names correct, so this is already it's more than three letters. Different.

C

And you said that or compliant pipe there's no concept of a couple, no concept of creating one will be given at home. They all create a pipe stream. Then you can change the security on pipe stream.

C

Don't know why we did to do it were the clients, I haven't really inflate with this in.

E

C

There might be something I'm, not thinking of at the moment, Detroit, where it doesn't really make sense to change the a cold one with client side actually seems a little odd. It is.

F

A pipe access rights is that an echo thing or is that it I want to read. That's.

C

I think that's read right.

F

E

So this one is, we.

F

Need to replace constructors correct.

B

Sure what I mean what's wrong with this pen, yeah a coluan create, seems fun. Just I mean it seems like the most straightforward trends day. I have no idea what the order is by the way I just made one guy.

G

C

B

Know their name.

C

In this case, I think the security is like after the mountain buffers eyes, yeah.

H

C

It somewhere, it's not.

I

Dead last well because demonstrate for its.

F

Poor handling, heritability.

F

Yeah sad that it's more than three letters, but now a better answer.

C

Well, we can put an a on the end instead of a coal and they get stuck see.

F

Not actually, what I care of it.

C

If I told you about Nigeria.

F

Because, if the, if these, if the anonymous pipe service, Freeman name type server stream types aren't sealed, we could derive from them that I'll probably make all of this functionality a lot harder instead of easier. So yeah.

D

That's that's gonna cost various issues. Yeah.

F

D

F

Thingy echo that create seams.

G

B

So we're happy with this one then.

F

G

That's they're coming down yeah.

C

G

All right so then, last one.

C

So this one well, it has its own assembly system, threading access control, similar to the file system. We just don't have creation for them and again Maul these things as well. Mutex for shorter lives in coordinates.

C

But we would change this to map to the same pattern with those extensions.

C

Would that leave Hannah laughs a little semaphore alcohol yep.

F

Mutex Apple and I assume again: this is what framework head was constructors and what we're gonna have Network, create methods, I think.

C

So I'm pretty sure they it's been like two days as I looked, it was so I know it I'm, pretty sure they're all concerned we're all I know these have I, don't think there are any staff methods, I think it's all constructors in these there's a lot of constructors on them.

C

Now there is a caveat with this thing you know thing I didn't had was there is no way this one is awkward because we don't provide the way to provide a handle so.

C

To new Texas and Florida Panhandle, you can open an existing one, but they have to be need. So you can create a new text. That's unnamed! Now, I! Don't think this is a problem because permanently trying to do things securely, because if you don't have the handle to an unnamed one, you can't access it anyway.

C

So creating an unnamed one and then doing said echo on it is fine nobody's going to interject themselves in there because they can't get ahold of the other one anyway, because they didn't you haven't given them the handle for the thing that you created, but.

B

C

B

Were independence? No, oh, they couldn't in right to handle. That's necessarily you! You would have to give the handle duplicate permission and then hand that off to.

C

Another process so that.

I

The handle is local to your process and yes, well. I thought this has a global object, know the name stuff is global, but but handle itself as you need.

C

The handle that you have is unique to your process, but.

B

Isn't there a generic like a new one right objects, windows, api, where the other guy would get its own handle to the same thing? No.

C

In order to in order to access something created by another process that over the process, STD likes to walk.

H

C

Debugger calls a special API, which is I'm a debugger and I'm attention to this process, which anyone can do, but I mean, if you have permission to debug a process like you're effectively.

E

C

Did one elevate, importantly so service appointment.

F

So the the mutex create, if you gave it so you cannot in Kanani.

E

F

Objects unless you're running toward right, but so the mutex create that we're adding here. Are you going to say if the name is null or empty, go a platform that sort of exception, correct, okay,.

C

H

C

Behavioral implication: if we, if we find that we do need to add this, we would have to add new API to mutex in the other ones that actually take the that allows you to construct it with an existing normal.

F

Stating things but yeah.

C

It's something terrible.

C

We can do terrible, we have to.

B

So we were landing with us, then maybe you're not making them extension methods are now.

F

We're applying the same formula, so we the mutex.

B

F

That create so what.

H

C

F

C

At all, Apple don't takes. Actually this isn't Hungarian its.

C

Meaning did you have a name, the Commission just keep stringing the words together, German.

F

Additives are suffixes on the net right. You also complicated questions when I.

G

Don't think of my name is in those terms. I just came on the.

F

H

The blue car over in the car blue or it's the blue car, not blue cars, won't work. No, it's not what everything I thought I knew about. German just manipulated the complicated man.

C

See you could be like the rest of us and just claim to know nothing about. German life is so much easier.

F

All you need to know.

C

I

B

Same in the US by them, how the biggest in the u.s. is called exit. No, it's just the most common city.

C

We take that back, I did play, took it to rise, so I know a little performance.

F

And certainly everyone's played there siedler von catan, all right, I'm, sorry I think that was rebuked ounces F there siedler von catan.

I

So happy with this, so we said no lower empty is a non.

C

Supporting your assumption, there's a platform not supported what you said, because.

F

That's the it worked yeah again if we pretend that we had create on instead of a constructor on framework, then giving the null name creates the anonymous mutex right, the crates of anonymous pretext for saying that we can't apply the security. Or are you saying that you would just create it and apply it with set at all, so wouldn't be atomic? It would like I'm.

F

Okay with that I'm just know what like we need to think about what we're doing before we do it, and so, if it's we're gonna make it not work and that you have to call set out for yourself and it should be P NSE yeah.

C

I wouldn't want to.

F

C

Think that would break like I think about the contract, isn't being that it is atomic rate. If we introduced that that it would be confusing because it'd be like well, but.

F

Mostly atomic, except for the spring, so if there, if, if mutex Akal was, if you were trying to use it to create an a cold anonymous, mutex we're gonna PN SC until people complained and.

C

You're treating the empty string as an office, hi, boo I, believe the public cares so many constructors in that they put the public I, believe you can pass in a internally. It passes an old through to the helper method, but I think you can pass in because.

F

There is one that doesn't take a string, I, just glide I stand, I saw it took a name and I didn't see anything.

C

D

I

But I would expect security. Probably is another good that we annotated, pipes, I, don't believe so. Okay, well, isn't that one of those things we just did we.

D

Pipelines is currently in review.

H

Giving birth or even three.

F

So it likes to know, I mean yeah, so the mutex constructor that takes a new Texas security allows it to be knowing yeah.

B

That's what I thought I thought Security's do. All these ones were supposed to be forwarding from the other constructors and that I thought that just accept now, yeah so probably.

F

Everything's known.

B

Yeah, but you know we can't careful this area actually all.

I

Right sweet, so then you know she's one. Only only.

C

One other a core, and we could have a discussion about that that wasn't necessary to help me. If that comes up again, we will deal with it. That's crypto, I hold.

F

The dark, the only it's the only place that you can use, one of those I mean we can add the type the types fine, but the only place that you can get one is a property on the deprecated I cook that place so I. Don't think it's worth that yeah. So.

C

F

Into type so someone.

C

Commercial, it I I think that I think the we can cross that bridge when we get to it really there we already answered the question of whether people need it from a functionality standpoint they run into it for me, like they need to be able to file. If.

F

I recall correctly I've only gotten one question in the history of dotnet court Eccles for Kathy and.

C

You know to be clear to for seeing key people, don't ask much about any of this, because once you get it talking about apples, it like drops off most of the planet, yeah.

E

C

It does come up for people that are writing big enterprise apps, like some of the internal woman's yep. Okay, my.

F

Biggest defense of why we may not need it for the Kathy Keyes is: we've never had support for messing with hackles on CNG and and I've seen one stack overflow question ever about CNG and then one person who asked about doing Eccles and core and I'm like well, don't use Kathy and we never had the support for CNG, and that was my.

C

Just just any just completeness this, so that's the entire set of derived classes from Needham, whatever Apple is getting. What could then? You know you know in the whole scheme of these things too. You know like eventually, we need to write a better like, particularly from the file system perspective set of security. Api is that people couldn't like do some sort of cross-platform. A claim, like you know, giving stuff to just me.

C

You know all users and stuff like that and I would want to cross the bridge of extending the other types once we've done more thinking about how we're actually going to comment on, because there's also there's also a killeen on unix RedHat. It comes with that in the box and eventually we're going to be desiring that sort of thing. If.

G

You're thinking about I'm going to prove these guys yeah.

C

Yeah yeah definitely and I, don't want to add stuff to the existing types. This is one of the other reasons why I don't want to do that because, like I, want to be I, want to be having that new thing and not have to have people try to figure out why that new thing is different different, but I could easily imagine.

F

Inputs of simple Akal like yeah me readwrite, not me, no and then some abstraction there. Well, they.

C

F

That back, it seems hard, because the moment you hit a complex Apple, what's the simple act as opposed to return and so I can I can see them on create method things, but I, don't know that I mean I would be very impressed to see a description. That's.

C

Only go but I think there are there other in, like like a generically Akal base class thing that like allows us allows you to like create one, that's window specific or you make it specific for the standard, one that people are so anyway. It's it will come up on. People continue to build more complicated solutions, so so.

G

B

There anything else we want to do for 3/1 I, think Austin may have had one, but he couldn't make it today so he's not there. Otherwise I would just suggest we review this one really quick, because it's at ER is there anything else Marcus.

B

It was only the only one that was Marcus. V1 was the first one that that Jeremy.

I

Had I only did that, because that was the out.

C

Of the bucket that's the highest priority, one man so.

B

These ones here only we don't do PRS, but given that it's a small thing, it makes the most sense I think so somebody ed would there be the only modifiers to stuff in system. Drawing and Steven was asking me whether you want to review this and I said, probably the first few to get a sense for what we want to do here.

B

So I think this is basically relevant for structs, whether you want to avoid you're done in copies right. That's really about it. So I mean I.

F

Guess there's two questions here. One is, is this like? What do we want as a goal for three one and two is: what do we want as a goal for all of our well.

B

Ignore three one for more distant I, just I just put this on the list of like soon to be review, because it's a PR and a PRS don't get better when they sit longer all right. So that's why I just want to get over this one I did this for five four three one I, don't care right.

F

So I know I'm, sorry I believe the current version of the compiler. If you write an auto problem. Well, we don't have it in our refs, because we've been deleting these attributed back out of the refs. It actually writes it down as we'd only get, because it knows the get has no side effects because it generated it.

F

Yeah right I do think that it there is goodness and having to read only so we probably want to do it, but we probably really want to do it big push on all of the types that we have and we're trying to make them be accurate, like no mobility but actually important, hey, I'm, glad I got a few laps and I think if we're doing one of them for three one that like I, don't know if we could even do everything for three one if we wanted to so maybe we would want to hold this until.

A

Later yeah for three Oh proper, we had basically done numeric Spector, because those were types that were frequently passed as in and they are mutable structs that we couldn't mark read-only because of public fields and I. Don't think we actually did any other.

E

Things as explicitly we don't like well I can really see it for this. From a composability standpoint, great.

C

People having point sitting in my rugs development, you know what was gonna be pretty common yeah speaking from having sitting on ones for the past few months and to like I had just kind of a one-off comment with you on the other day that yeah, there is probably a lot of work to be done. Like framework lying to me, I'm gonna start these annotations I'm.

H

So that that tells you know, provides.

F

I'm gonna see.

B

These imitations.

D

You're gonna be the only or read.

B

All my specifically, you mean one thing we probably should be doing. I, don't know what that we can tool this in any reasonable fashion, but, like we do only strikes me and sustain that you know yeah touches pretty much everything that is distracted and not just properties, probably also methods right right.

A

You basically want to you, you want to say anything that so anything that doesn't mutate the instance can be marked. Read-Only forget our properties. That's almost always the case. If we just wanna say it should be I'd already done, that especial unfair and- and it is safe from the compilers perspective to even mark getters as read-only. If they're returning like value, not lazy, because from the perspective of the external user, it is effectively read only because it's provided you're doing it threat safe and everything. So.

B

You can live yeah.

A

So you can buy in a couple places what.

F

Is the read-only only a it's only a attribute on the method paper.

A

F

The runtime doesn't carry about really.

A

Yeah, the runtime pilers. What.

F

Made the copy yeah so I mean we could seriously take every property and in the API I mean we wouldn't want to do it. If we know it's wrong, not.

C

Like right be doing.

F

C

Know what's wrong or we think that there's a reasonable chance that we might make it readable for some of them I like, ideally, no, you never make a getter beautiful, but there are plenty of examples where we get immutable. Well, sorry I've been working in some other places like.

E

There's even more and.

C

E

Things is creepy because it's so so like nullable, for example,.

A

All of NOLA Bowl is currently considered mutable because to string on the instance could theoretically mutate the member thing. So knowable is a perfect example. If we want to mark like everything, except for two string as read-only, because it won't mutate for everything else. One is to stream muted, because it's an it's calling the instance method on the underlying T. That could be a struct in the persons and permutation of to stream. Couldn't you Tate yeah, so.

C

But basically it's we, we tried making, we try taking the little T read-only is.

B

C

Go through the coder string, you'll see the comments yeah so.

B

One question I have so it is a compatible change right, so I'm liking. Something is it only that wasn't read-only before it's fine, yes, presumably the other way operation is not.

A

Opposite is also the compiler does not consider it a breaking change. It is a behavioral change, however, in that you may now get a copy or a mutation where the compiler had emitted code. Thinking that you wouldn't do what happened so so, if you've marked something read-only, the compiler will align a copy, but you then remove it and make it mutate code that they compile against it. Well show run it's not a binary or some sort of breaking change, but you will now get a silent mutation, but.

B

That's it's only the reverse. If you drop, if you're removing, we know any more than you.

D

B

You're perfect at first because you make a copy yeah, but in yeah, so so it sounds so ii mean. It also sounds like a perfect example, often and louder that we probably want to run for ourselves. Just looking at your message and saying: look: you're not doing any modifications, it's obstructing able to market as we don't leave and maybe use that thing to actually prepare PR across the board. With that.

A

This one we might want to.

A

G

The order of 100 not too bad.

B

Well, it's long, it's like and public the 90% of them are. We are immutable right because we said don't mess with us.

F

And then the ones that are immutable or tend to be super struck the numerators there's quite a bit of value.

C

In this, for these ones too,.

F

C

Particular, legally, you have to think hard on point people calling system exits.

F

And something else where I like yeah well I mean like I, had a minute yeeaargh yesterday that believe I paid more attention than I did he's like you took a thing by him and you call the method on it. Well, it has readwrite fields because it lets someone create it with field rights and that made a copy, so I delete it. Although the places I use the word in because I'll just observe the copy, yeah so I mean look, we should do this.

C

F

Just coming in there there's about, oh, you like.

C

You said it's rather constrained, I mean: are we gonna be pushing this too far back by what doing them all once or won't.

B

Mean neck to me at this to things but use a PR, so we can either decide to just close this PR and say we're just doing politically across the board. That's what I was doing it other way of doing it, adjust Merce to PR and then do the rest later. That's also doable because I mean these PRS would just accumulate large complex. If you don't take that right and I think.

A

If we were to take one for to define just like I I would say it's completely fine to do it. Piecemeal, yeah.

E

A

An eventual goal to like make sure we've done an entire pass and there's an issue cracking that yeah.

E

A

Its because, if we have specific use cases than Y block getting that in which.

B

Is basically we do for inaudible I mean they. She said, we grew much inaudible things and let me do it differ to the fair again. Otherwise he can never make progress. Billables.

F

Being tracked with a project plan and if anybody jumps off the plan, we asked them not to write. Oh I do their work. I would.

A

Say if we're doing this and we're going to take it to ship room I would strongly say we might want to consider nullable of T as one other thing, we should say, let's review this, let's put it in yeah.

F

If we're doing anything, try to if we're doing anything, four three one with read-only modifiers, a knowable of T, would be the one to do it. Yeah yeah.

A

F

Remember we did try to do that for Rio, which, just due to circumstances.

C

We card to back now sure.

F

I can do like that because we.

E

C

A

B

Does anybody please wanted this should be into money, because I mean I would just default to its 500 somebody unless.

A

Someone has a critical scenario: this is just system drawing so I, don't think.

C

Everyone, oh yeah, we don't have much time left and I hadn't sleep if, if this was being, what presented is like? Oh, we did this. Like you know. The wind forms apps run much faster.

F

The only place that this is going to matter is, if somebody has, if they're walking through this on a read-only field or read-only local, if it, if they're one of those or in which, as in the read-only, mean only breath. Whichever way it is, those are the only places that these annotations are gonna matter. I, don't think point is very likely to be hitting any of them yet so no.

C

No reduced you just can't like that code ones critical! You can't write it. You can write the encode without this rate, which is funny so I, agree. I. Think that there's 500 endless somebody else comes up. What do we do? We.

B

Have a checking issue for we'd only modifiers anywhere, we probably yeah.

A

You just look for created by me: you'll find it somewhere in that list.

F

So I know that the compiler perfect.you supports this, the only Docs that we have on it right now we're doing read-only on the entire strong tape. Has this cleared the language stuff? Is it in or is it like? No.

H

I should be cleared the language stuff read-only. We.

F

Have seen we'd like to compile or do things that then we yank out at some point so did reloading show so did.

C

F

Only actually show okay, then they need to update the the read only modify our documentation because it only talks about the one on strux and not on I.

A

I, don't really many of the minor language features are properly documented, yet I.

F

I just got through the when you're declaring strux guidelines and I added the make it read only if you can and since I couldn't find the make your members read-only. If your struct wasn't I didn't write that down now I know, I can go back and write that down.

F

Because, like ref structs were an attribute 'href like when they first got at it, then we changed the language and then would change the flow analysis of the stack I'll expands. And so we definitely let the compilers do things that we can see things that haven't actually shipped.

B

Oh and said market API for proof which is read on a PR but I will not mess with the nomarks labor, because I don't know what the bar for that one is. But I mark you a shoe at four five folder, because it was in the future milestone and then neither be said of our changes to we don't leave. We should definitely one if anything, urgent, I can't wait until the D to the next path, which would be not next Tuesday but the Tuesday after because next Tuesday we do.

A

C

A

There's some more arm intrinsics that we need to review to help that work from the arm side. Is it ready.

F

A

We're working on getting it ready and it will definitely be ready if we schedule it for like a month out or something yeah.

B

I mean the next one is twelve sr22, which is twelve days from now so I'm. Usually, this was not quite this.

E

Quickly, like approval on that, you would opened up look.

C

E

C

E

B

Right, alright, thanks folks, online.