gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam R. B. Jack" <>
Subject Re: Fw: [codec] base64Codec.decode and DecoderException
Date Thu, 27 May 2004 13:21:13 GMT

Thanks, nice research/write up. [I am copying Gump to keep a centralized
archive, and I'll try to post a blog entry once complete.]

So, theoretically the new code will still run against codec 1.12 (no
signatures have explicitly changed), it just won't compile against it (seems
reasonable). If this exception really is meaningless, and not thrown, no
effect ought be felt to anybody other than developers/builders, right?

Thanks for doing this. Hopefully an xmlrpc committer (with a CLA ;-) can
perform the change. XMLRPC has dependees that would benefit from Gump

and lots of knock on dependees:


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ryan Hoegg" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [codec] base64Codec.decode and DecoderException

> Hello,
> I saw your message on commons-dev and made a mental note to look into
> it, since I incorporated Base64 from commons-codec about a year ago.
> Quick answer: hey cool, no more meaningless exception to catch!
> Codec is only used currently in HEAD, and we haven't even released an
> alpha of 2.0 yet.  I dug in a bit, and the DecoderException was thrown
> from Base64.decode(byte[]) until version 1.12 (Last November).  This was
> before codec released 1.2.  My solution will probably be to bump our
> dependency to 1.2 and remove the catch.
> Once I stop procrastinating and fax my CLA I will probably JFDI. :)
> --
> Ryan Hoegg
> ISIS Networks
> Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >I posted this to the commons-dev [codec] list yesterday, but figured you
> >might have views yourself (as a user of codec). I don't (personally) know
> >the release history of codec, or if you'd mind not being able to compile
> >your CVS HEAD code against older releases (assume any existed where it
> >this exception), but one quick fix would be to compile out the try/catch.
> >
> >Clearly this is to your discretion, and depends upon what codec has
> >released, and what they plan on releasing. If I get an answer on
> >I'll post it here.
> >
> >regards,
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >

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

View raw message