commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julius Davies <juliusdav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [codec] regression in 1.4
Date Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:26:09 GMT
Hi,

Any opinions at all out there regarding this?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-89

Mat Booth, the Fedora commons-codec maintainer, left a message today
on CODEC-89:
---
[...]
It definitely feels like a regression to me – I'm tempted to apply
this patch to the commons-codec distributed by Fedora Linux (I am the
maintainer there).
---


Gary Gregory posted this on CODEC-89 a week ago:
---
If you want, you can post to the dev list to ask for the community's
feedback. It would be good to see what other people think.
---

And that's why I wrote the original email.  So, like I said up above:

Any opinions at all out there regarding this?





yours,

Julius


On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Julius Davies <juliusdavies@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Commons Developers,
>
>
> There's a minor regression in Codec-1.4 that causes two extra white
> space characters to appear at the very end of the Base64 output when
> using the instance encode() method instead of the static one:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-89
>
> This seems to be causing some interop problems for clients.  For
> example, one person on the commons-user mailing list appeared to be
> comparing output of Codec-1.4 against values stored in a database
> using Codec-1.3 - so obviously they are having problems!  They can
> workaround using trim() or switching to the static method, but they
> don't expect to have this problem.
>
> I suspect this problem is also behind the issues these people
> experienced, but that's all I could find after about 15 minutes
> playing with the google.
>
> http://alphawit.com/blog/2009/oct/12/amazon-vs-apache-my-base64-better-your-base64/
>
> http://code.google.com/p/oauth-signpost/issues/detail?id=18
>
>
>
> Should we release a 1.4.1 and fix the API to bring it back inline with
> Commons-Codec-1.3?  (If yes, then the sooner the better I think!)  Or
> should we leave the API as it is?
>
> Sorry I didn't catch this earlier.  My patches caused this problem.  I
> was careful to make sure the static method had stayed the same in
> Codec-1.3 and Codec-1.4, but I just never thought people would
> actually write things like this:
>
> new Base64().encode()   !!!
>
> Just didn't enter my mind to test that to compare output of 1.3 vs
> 1.4.  Very sorry.  :-(
>
>


-- 
yours,

Julius Davies
250-592-2284 (Home)
250-893-4579 (Mobile)
http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html

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


Mime
View raw message