commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Hoegg <rho...@isisnetworks.net>
Subject Re: [codec] RE: Base64.java
Date Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:39:52 GMT
If this is the direction in which we are headed, I would nominate 
Henri's initial idea.  Bear in mind we are not talking about 1.1 here, 
but 2.0 (i.e. future).

For 1.1, my vote (as a committer in XML-RPC) is for Jeffrey's solution, 
with the default being opur consensus on the reading of the relevant RFCs.

For 2.0, I think the idea of a Base64 interface with different 
implementations sounds cleaner than either idea.  Reason being, the user 
of decodeChunked propbably wants to be using encodeChunked as well.

--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net

Henri Yandell wrote:

>I agree with you up until the last point.
>
>Rather than an obscure and irritating boolean argument on the end, just
>offer a different name.
>
>public static byte[] decode(byte[] data);
>public static byte[] decodeChunked(byte[] data);
>
>[bear in mind decodeChunked may be a bad name. I'm just copying :) ]
>
>Hen
>
>On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Jeffrey Dever wrote:
>
>>There does not seem to be much choice other than overloading the method
>>signatures:
>>public static byte[] decode(byte[] data);
>>public static byte[] decode(byte[] data, boolean chunk);
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message