Re: [Fwd: Re: Moving Base64 in HttpClient to commons-codec]

2003-02-03 Thread Ryan Hoegg
Actually from the thread in eyebrowse it looks like they are taking your version of the class from CVS or maybe from Bugzilla. Tim definitely seems to think our Base64 is the one to use from the lot. Martin Redington wrote: Hi Ryan, I would get my additional changes in (or at least bring t

Re: [Fwd: Re: Moving Base64 in HttpClient to commons-codec]

2003-02-03 Thread Martin Redington
Hi Ryan, I would get my additional changes in (or at least bring them to Tim's attention), as they are a definite step forward, in terms of both RFC compliance and efficiency (Danny's comment about trailing CR/LF's not withstanding) ... On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 10:33 PM, Ryan Hoe

Re: [Fwd: Re: Moving Base64 in HttpClient to commons-codec]

2003-02-03 Thread Ryan Hoegg
I think I'm going to back off any further changes as it looks like this has turned into an Apache-wide thing now: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=23792 Tim O'Brien says there are 35 (!) active classes throughout Apache using this code. After the dust settles

RE: [Fwd: Re: Moving Base64 in HttpClient to commons-codec]

2003-02-03 Thread Danny Angus
> a final newline to encoded data (which seems to be RFC compliant, as > lines are supposed to be folded as "at most" 76 characters, and this is > also how the Perl base64 behaves). Yup, Base64 is a mail transport encoding defined in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1521.txt for transport of MIME dat

Re: [Fwd: Re: Moving Base64 in HttpClient to commons-codec]

2003-02-03 Thread Martin Redington
On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 08:37 PM, Ryan Hoegg wrote: I've seen these fly by as you have been updating the Bug. I imagine most of these are Good Things, but I think the Codec people will have concerns about silently ignoring things the RFC encourages us to complain about. You think we

Re: [Fwd: Re: Moving Base64 in HttpClient to commons-codec]

2003-02-03 Thread Ryan Hoegg
I've seen these fly by as you have been updating the Bug. I imagine most of these are Good Things, but I think the Codec people will have concerns about silently ignoring things the RFC encourages us to complain about. You think we should raise some sort of exception? -- Ryan Hoegg ISIS Netwo

Re: [Fwd: Re: Moving Base64 in HttpClient to commons-codec]

2003-02-03 Thread Martin Redington
On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 07:52 PM, Ryan Hoegg wrote: Looks like the appropriate people have been made aware. Thanks for checking that one out, Martin! np, but you might want to check out my most recent patches on bug 9931. These added: a final newline to encoded data (which seems to

[Fwd: Re: Moving Base64 in HttpClient to commons-codec]

2003-02-03 Thread Ryan Hoegg
Looks like the appropriate people have been made aware. Thanks for checking that one out, Martin! -- Ryan Hoegg ISIS Networks'http://www.isisnetworks.net --- Begin Message --- I saw that bug report and made Tim aware that xml-rpc also had an implementation. They all appear to be based on the s

Re: Moving Base64 in HttpClient to commons-codec

2003-02-03 Thread Ryan Hoegg
Hi Jandalf, I am not currently subscribed to Commons Dev, although I imagine I need to resubscribe sometime soon. Martin Redington just checked HttpClient's version of Base64.java, and it still has the problems in Bug 9931. We have also made some performance improvements as you will see in th