kotlin-result VS cargo-crev

Author here. I have no idea what you could possibly mean with this comment. The coroutineBinding implementation correctly uses the coroutines API for parallel decomposition of Result bindings, exactly how the Kotlin Corotines guide tells you to (backed by a [Mutex](https://github.com/michaelbull/kotlin-result/blob/master/kot...)). The coroutineBinding isn't even the main selling point of the library, you can use it without using this feature entirely.

Please could you elaborate on what "looking thread safe" means to you? The only portion of the library that supports concurrency *is* thread safe - the unit tests prove it and the use of concurrency primitives such as Kotlin's Mutex are indicative of this. I truly have no idea how you've judged the entirely of the lbirary on whether it's "thread safe" when there is a single function that's related to concurrency and it is very clearly using concurrency primitives.

Sealed classes in combination with a library like https://github.com/michaelbull/kotlin-result will get you what you need. Essentially at that point you'll be doing error handling the way you would in Rust, where a 1-level deep sealed class containing data classes as children act as the root error type and each of its variants. If you have errors coming from two different domains you just create a wrapper error type for each domain.

This is a great result lib: https://github.com/michaelbull/kotlin-result

Lastly I do not like kotlin's Result and we use the kotlin-result library which is more expressive and not tied to Throwable (similar to Arrow's Either).

In my own code, I started to use explicit error handling. I'm currently experimenting with Result (from https://github.com/michaelbull/kotlin-result) and Raise (from https://arrow-kt.io/).

un-related to multiplatform i've found it extremely helpful to wrap things in a Result type. If something can throw an error, it get's a Result return type. It sounds like that would help your use case too. The built in Result may be useful too

This is a better impl.

Using a result type can help to differentiate quite nicely. https://github.com/michaelbull/kotlin-result

kotlin-result

In other cases it may be more documented, such as Golangs baked-in telemetry.

There should be better ways to check these problems. The best I have found so far is Crev https://github.com/crev-dev/crev/. It's most used implementation is Cargo-crev https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev, but hopefully it will become more required to use these types of tools. Certainty and metrics about how many eyes have been on a particular script, and what expertise they have would be a huge win for software.

The main problem the author is talking about is actually about version updates, which in Maven as well as crates.io is up to each lib's author, and is not curated in any way.

There's no technical solution to that, really. Do you think Nexus Firewall can pick up every exploit, or even most? How confident of that are you, and what data do you have to back that up? I don't have any myself, but would not be surprised at all if "hackers" can easily work around their scanning.

However, I don't have a better approach than using scanning tools like Nexus, or as the author proposes, use a curated library repository like Debian is doing (which hopefully gets enough eyeballs to remain secure) or the https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev project (manually reviewed code) also mentioned. It's interesting that they mention C/C++ just rely on distros providing dynamic libs instead which means you don't even control your dependencies versions, some distro does (how reliable is the distro?)... I wonder if that could work for other languages or if it's just as painful as it looks in the C world.

For instance, the worst company imaginable may be in charge of software that was once FOSS, and they may change absolutely nothing about it, so it should be fine. However, if a small update is added that does something bad, you should know about it immediately.

The solution seems to be much more clearly in the realm of things like crev: https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev/

Wherein users can get a clear picture of what dependencies are used in the full chain, and how they have been independently reviewed for security and privacy. That's the real solution for the future. A quick score that is available upon display everytime you upgrade, with large warnings for anything above a certain threshold.

The metrics on crates.io are a useful sniff test, but ultimately you need to review things yourself, or trust some contributors and reviewers. Some projects, like cargo crev or cargo vet can help with the process.

You can use cargo-geiger or cargo-crev to check for whether people you trusted (e.g. u/jonhoo ) trust this crate.

There is a similar idea being explored with https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev - you trust a reviewer who reviews crates for trustworthiness, as well as other reviewers.

[cargo-crev](https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev) looks like a good step in the right direction but not really commonly used.

'cargo crev' makes this kind of workflow possible: https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev

The crev folks themselves are no fans of PGP but need a way to security identify that you are in fact the review author, so that's where the id generation comes in. Ultimately crev is just a bunch of repos with text files you sign with IDs. The nice property is that you can chain these together into a web of trust and it's unfortunate that vet doesn't just use the same signed files on repos model as a foundation because even if they don't trust anyone else, we could turn around and trust them.