Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 33059 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 18:56:22 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Feb 2003 18:56:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 9738 invoked by uid 97); 4 Feb 2003 18:57:52 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@nagoya.betaversion.org Received: (qmail 9731 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 18:57:52 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by nagoya.betaversion.org with SMTP; 4 Feb 2003 18:57:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 32861 invoked by uid 500); 4 Feb 2003 18:56:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 32849 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 18:56:19 -0000 Received: from umbongo.flamefew.net (64.253.103.114) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Feb 2003 18:56:19 -0000 Received: by umbongo.flamefew.net (Postfix on Linux (i386), from userid 500) id A8D4A3A2482; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:56:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by umbongo.flamefew.net (Postfix on Linux (i386)) with ESMTP id A7AFB296D7A; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:56:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:56:21 -0500 (EST) From: Henri Yandell X-X-Sender: To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Cc: , 'Jeffrey Dever' , rhoegg Subject: Re: [codec] RE: Base64.java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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? Base64Utils Base64 interface hidden classes: RFCBase64 OtherBase64 JimsBase64 and then: Base64Utils-> public static Base64 RFCBase64 = new RFCBase64(). ...etc.. ?? Hen 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: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org