[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NET-638?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Daniel Leong updated NET-638:
-----------------------------
    Description: 
Currently using Commons.net's Telnet client for connecting to MUD/MUSH servers, 
and some servers use subnegotiation for sending out-of-band data with more than 
the hard-coded 512 bytes that TelnetInputStream limits it to. It looks like it 
would be straightforward to add an (optional) int constructor parameter to 
TelnetClient that passes it to a similar, new TelnetInputStream constructor 
parameter.

I've got a workaround using a bunch of reflection, but it'd be nice to not need 
that.

  was:
Currently using Commons.net's Telnet client for connecting to MUD/MUSH servers, 
and some servers use subnegotiation for sending out-of-band data with more than 
the hard-coded 512 bytes that {code:java}TelnetInputStream{code} limits it to. 
It looks like it would be straightforward to add an (optional) int constructor 
parameter to TelnetClient that passes it to a similar, new TelnetInputStream 
constructor parameter.

I've got a workaround using a bunch of reflection, but it'd be nice to not need 
that.


> Telnet subnegotiations hard-limited to 512 bytes
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: NET-638
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NET-638
>             Project: Commons Net
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Telnet
>    Affects Versions: 3.6
>            Reporter: Daniel Leong
>   Original Estimate: 1h
>  Remaining Estimate: 1h
>
> Currently using Commons.net's Telnet client for connecting to MUD/MUSH 
> servers, and some servers use subnegotiation for sending out-of-band data 
> with more than the hard-coded 512 bytes that TelnetInputStream limits it to. 
> It looks like it would be straightforward to add an (optional) int 
> constructor parameter to TelnetClient that passes it to a similar, new 
> TelnetInputStream constructor parameter.
> I've got a workaround using a bunch of reflection, but it'd be nice to not 
> need that.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

Reply via email to