commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Hoegg <>
Subject Re: [codec] RE:
Date Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:44:02 GMT
O'brien, Tim wrote:

>>1) One of the classes in the package set the flags in a static block.
>>2) The flags are set before each call to the Base64 
>>encode/decode methods.
>>To use 
>>flags safely, you would have to make them instance members and requre 
>>instantiation of Base64 objects.  This does more harm than good.
>No, static flags.  That is harmful.  If you take a look at
>, you notice that we move
>towards an approach where one could instantiate a Base64 instance and
>configure certain properties of the encoding algorithm.  We'll keep the
>static methods for ease of use, but behind the scenes those two functions
>would be maintaining and configuring two separate "instances" of the class -
>we'll get there, my main concern right now is to achieve a level of reuse
>and then we can go about developing sound OO design behind the scenes
>without violating our contract to both xml-rpc and httpclient.
>It cannot be overemphasized that we are not talking about configuring a
>class via static flags.  That's a dangerous proposition, especially in
>multi-threaded environments.
>I'm out of contact for 2 days, so I'll let the discussion simmer a bit.
>Tim O'Brien 
I like your plan Tim.  Let's get 1.1 nailed down so we are all on the 
same codebase, and do the design of 2.0 right.  I don't think XML-RPC 
cares much whether we get the default in decode(byte[]) in 1.1, I think 
that decision should be made based on RFC interpretation.

Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message