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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
