On 14/07/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:21 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Just noticed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-68 which
> > implies that at least one person is expecting to be able to include
> > invalid base64 characte
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:21 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just noticed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-68 which
> implies that at least one person is expecting to be able to include
> invalid base64 characters without a problem - in that case, after the
> PAD characters.
>
> S
On 14/07/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:37 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Should have tried it before posting ...
> >
> > Both IOException and DecoderException are checked, and so this means
> > that the method signature for
> >
> > pub
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:37 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should have tried it before posting ...
>
> Both IOException and DecoderException are checked, and so this means
> that the method signature for
>
> public static byte[] decodeBase64()
>
> would need to change - or the method needs
On 14/07/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just looked at this again.
> >
> > Using IOException causes problems, because the interface BinaryDecoder
> > does not declare that as a possible exception.
> >
> >
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just looked at this again.
>
> Using IOException causes problems, because the interface BinaryDecoder
> does not declare that as a possible exception.
>
> How about using DecoderException instead?
>
> Seems just as appropriate to me
Just looked at this again.
Using IOException causes problems, because the interface BinaryDecoder
does not declare that as a possible exception.
How about using DecoderException instead?
Seems just as appropriate to me.
On 25/06/2008, Julius Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 for IOExceptio
+1 for IOException.
I've come around on this. Originally I liked garbage-in, garbage-out
idea, but I'm +1 to IOException now. The reason I've come around is
that I just cannot imagine any Java developer who would be confused or
surprised when presented with an IOException in this situation.
I'l
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How should Base64.decode() handle invalid encoded data?
I'd vote for an IOException. As the RFC indicates, such characters are
more than likely indicators for errors. If anyone requires such a
message, it is easy to implement a Fi
How should Base64.decode() handle invalid encoded data?
rfc2045 says:
All line breaks or other characters not
found in Table 1 must be ignored by decoding software. In base64
data, characters other than those in Table 1, line breaks, and other
white space probably indicate a transmis
10 matches
Mail list logo