Gary, It'll split the patch into four smaller ones which can be dealt with one after another. I'll start with the small tweaks I have made to the URLCodec with the quoted-printable codec, Q-codec, and B-codec following shortly
Oleg On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 02:34, Gary Gregory wrote: > Oleg, > > This all sounds good to me. I am happy to have codec become more useful > to httpclient as bits get moved or created in the right place. > > Looking at the Bugzilla ticket, I think it would make it easier for all > (at least I'd like it that way ;-) if you could create one ticket per > codec: quoted-printable codec, Q-codec and B-codec. This would make it > easier to integrate new code when you/we deem it is fine for nightly > builds. Unit tests are a must of course! Some Javadocs would be nice too > ;-) Perhaps not 100% complete at this stage but at least enough for > others to grok the pile. > > I think codec can stay 1.2 compliant for quite a while, at least until > the streamable and/or stateful codec f/w appears. Even then I would hope > that compatibility can be achieved even if it means shipping a > 1.4-codec-add if streamable and/or stateful codec need to use NIO. > > Thanks! > Gary > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Oleg Kalnichevski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 15:39 > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: RE: [codec] RFC1522 codecs & partial implementationofquoted- > > printable codec > > > > Gary, > > We do need Q-codec in [HttpClient] one way or another, either as a > part > > of [HttpClient] package itself or as a service provided by [Codec]. > The > > problem is that [HttpClient] must stay compatible with Java 1.2 at > least > > for another major release. Therefore I'd like to get all the codecs > that > > [HttpClient] needs for the 3.0 release in the 1.x branch of [Codec] > > before the new framework is introduced and (potentially) renders > [Codec] > > HEAD Java 1.2 incompatible. > > > > Oleg > > > > On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 00:18, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > As the [HttpClient] post-2.0 nightly drops now include [codec] 1.2, > > > primarily to reuse Base64 IIRC (and the URL codec?), it would make > sense > > > to move or implement more codecs in [codec]. > > > > > > With this in mind, I would look at the [HttpClient] code base and > ask > > > the [HttpClient] folks what they think. > > > > > > Since HttpClient now ships with codec, I am all for having the right > > > bits in the right place. > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Oleg Kalnichevski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 14:45 > > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > > Subject: [codec] RFC1522 codecs & partial implementation ofquoted- > > > > printable codec > > > > > > > > Gary, > > > > I have submitted quite a while a draft implementation of three new > > > > codecs: quoted-printable codec (partial implementation), Q-codec > and > > > > B-codec. Nothing terribly exiting, but all there may come quite > handy > > > in > > > > [HttpClient] and [FileUpload]. > > > > > > > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26617 > > > > > > > > Shall I continue working on these codecs or there is no interest > of > > > what > > > > so ever? > > > > > > > > Oleg > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 22:27, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > > > FYI, please see the RELEASE-NOTES.txt file in CVS for a current > look > > > at > > > > > what a 1.3 would contain. I think the file is up to date. If > not, > > > let > > > > > this list know. > > > > > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 13:15 > > > > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > > > > Subject: RE: [codec] preparing for another release? > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, I had suggested a release schedule around the new > major > > > codec > > > > > > work: > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 13:21 > > > > > > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > > > > > > Subject: [codec] Possible 1.3 and beyond? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the current discussions around stateful and streamable > > > decoders > > > > > > all involve introducing a new and better architecture I am > > > wondering > > > > > if > > > > > > we should: > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) Release a version 1.3 soon to gather all of the fixes and > > > > > > improvements since the November 1.2 release and, > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) then work on the new code and plan for a 1.4 to introduce > the > > > new > > > > > > architecture? > > > > > > > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Alex Karasulu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:41 > > > > > > > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > > > > > > > Subject: [codec] preparing for another release? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you prepping for another release before looking into > some of > > > > > > > these Stateful codec matters? I think you or someone else > may > > > > > > > have mentioned it at some point but I forget. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
