On 6/20/08, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefano Bagnara ha scritto: >> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >>> On 6/20/08, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >>>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Bernd Fondermann >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I found the org.apache.commons.net.io.ToNetASCIIOutputStream class in >>>>>>> commons-net, should we use it instead of >>>>>>> com.sun.mail.util.CRLFOutputStream? >>>>>>> We currently have almost 10 classes in various modules depending on >>>>>>> CRLFOutputStream. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stefano >>>>>> Its worth giving a try. >>>>>> +1 >>>>> hmmm... >>>>> >>>>> shouldn't creating this be very straightforward? what am i missing? >>>>> >>>>> - robert >>>> True. I'm not in a "coding" period and this is the kind of code I should >>>> not really write in days like this because my bugs x line ratio is too >>>> high... I can try to give it a slot, but I warned you! ;-) >>> >>> Sounds good to me >> >> Done, please review.
That'll have to wait till I'm back at home >> >> Maybe we should also implement the methods for buffers "filters" and not >> only the byte per byte method. Yes >> I can do this, but is there a good way to test it with specific chunk >> sizes? (not sure if this anwsers your question or not but I'm sure you'll shout if it doesn't) I think it's best to focus on boundary conditions (corner cases) then construct integratuon tests based on bulk real life data (I like sonnets by the bard from Project Gutenburg). > I also have another doubt. > Currently the CRLFOutputStream needs a checkCRLFTerminator call before > closing or it will not correctly fix a sequence ending in "\r" alone. > > This is an issue because you have to take care of this call that is not > a standard for filteroutputstreams. I think this should be addressed > I could change the algorythm so to replace "\r" with "\r\n", ignore "\n" > if the previous one was "\r" and replace "\n" with "\r\n" otherwise. > > This wouldn't need the final check method call but this would mean that > we pass \r\n when we only received \r: any drawback with this? I think I've used this strategy in the past. Anyone else see anything wrong? Robert > > Stefano > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
