Re: [codec] RE: Base64.java

[Ryan Hoegg]

If this is the direction in which we are headed, I would nominate Henri's initial idea. Bear in mind we are not talking about 1.1 here, but 2.0 (i.e. future).

For 1.1, my vote (as a committer in XML-RPC) is for Jeffrey's solution, with the default being opur consensus on the reading of the relevant RFCs.

For 2.0, I think the idea of a Base64 interface with different implementations sounds cleaner than either idea. Reason being, the user of decodeChunked propbably wants to be using encodeChunked as well.

--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net

Henri Yandell wrote:

I agree with you up until the last point.

Rather than an obscure and irritating boolean argument on the end, just
offer a different name.

public static byte[] decode(byte[] data);
public static byte[] decodeChunked(byte[] data);

[bear in mind decodeChunked may be a bad name. I'm just copying :) ]

Hen

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Jeffrey Dever wrote:

There does not seem to be much choice other than overloading the method
signatures:
public static byte[] decode(byte[] data);
public static byte[] decode(byte[] data, boolean chunk);

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