commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: [codec] RE:
Date Tue, 04 Feb 2003 18:56:21 GMT

The concept of setting flags etc seems to be quite poor OO. Maybe I'm not
understanding things properly though.

Shouldn't it be a classic FactoryMethod pattern?

Base64 interface

hidden classes:


and then:


public static Base64 RFCBase64 = new RFCBase64().



On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Martin Redington wrote:

> Hi all,
>      personally I favour Ryan's suggestion of setting flags (and/or
> system properties) separately to obtain non-RFC compliant behaviour (or
> to specify which RFC to follow, where they conflict), or to specify
> that exceptions should be raised when encountering a non-Base64 char,
> rather than adding additional args to method signatures.
> Given the wide usage of this code, and the need to inter-operate
> smoothly with other implementations that may or may not comply with a
> particular RFC, giving the end-user as much flexibility as possible is
> probably a good thing and shouldn't add too much complexity to the
> code. Maybe both approaches would be appropriate.
>     cheers,
>            m.
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message