O'brien, Tim wrote:
I like your plan Tim. Let's get 1.1 nailed down so we are all on the same codebase, and do the design of 2.0 right. I don't think XML-RPC cares much whether we get the default in decode(byte[]) in 1.1, I think that decision should be made based on RFC interpretation.1) One of the classes in the package set the flags in a static block.No, static flags. That is harmful. If you take a look at
2) The flags are set before each call to the Base64 encode/decode methods.
To use flags safely, you would have to make them instance members and requre instantiation of Base64 objects. This does more harm than good.
http://cvs.apache.org/~tobrien/codec/evolve.html, you notice that we move
towards an approach where one could instantiate a Base64 instance and
configure certain properties of the encoding algorithm. We'll keep the
static methods for ease of use, but behind the scenes those two functions
would be maintaining and configuring two separate "instances" of the class -
we'll get there, my main concern right now is to achieve a level of reuse
and then we can go about developing sound OO design behind the scenes
without violating our contract to both xml-rpc and httpclient.
It cannot be overemphasized that we are not talking about configuring a
class via static flags. That's a dangerous proposition, especially in
multi-threaded environments.
I'm out of contact for 2 days, so I'll let the discussion simmer a bit.
--------
Tim O'Brien
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
