Nice patch, Sebb! Now just combine it with the JUnits from mine! :-p
yours,
Julius
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:49 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 02/12/2009, Julius Davies wrote:
>> This current JUnit test "kinda/sorta" covers the static method for
>> non-chunking:
>>
>> public void testSingletons() {
On 02/12/2009, Julius Davies wrote:
> This current JUnit test "kinda/sorta" covers the static method for
> non-chunking:
>
> public void testSingletons() {
> assertEquals("AA==", new String(Base64.encodeBase64(new byte[]{(byte) 0})));
> assertEquals("AQ==", new String(Base64.encodeBase64(new
This current JUnit test "kinda/sorta" covers the static method for non-chunking:
public void testSingletons() {
assertEquals("AA==", new String(Base64.encodeBase64(new byte[]{(byte) 0})));
assertEquals("AQ==", new String(Base64.encodeBase64(new byte[]{(byte) 1})));
[...]
}
Especially when
On 02/12/2009, Mat Booth wrote:
> 2009/12/2 sebb :
>
> > On 02/12/2009, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> What about making the offending class configurable for 1.3 or 1.4
> behavior?
> >
> > How? System property? That's not usually advisable for a library.
> >
> >> The issue becomes which should b
2009/12/2 sebb :
> On 02/12/2009, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> What about making the offending class configurable for 1.3 or 1.4 behavior?
>
> How? System property? That's not usually advisable for a library.
>
>> The issue becomes which should be the default behavior...
>>
>> Should the default behav
By the way, if we do start the ball rolling for a 1.4.1 release, I
nominate myself to better document the changes between 1.3 <---> 1.4.1
kind of along the lines of the discussion over on CODEC-91:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-91
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Julius Davies wro
.
>
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 17:18
>> > To: Commons Developers List
>> > Subject: Re: [codec] regression in 1.4
&g
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 17:18
> > To: Commons Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [codec] regression in 1.4
> >
> > On 02/12/2009, Julius Davies wrote:
: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 17:18
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [codec] regression in 1.4
>
> On 02/12/2009, Julius Davies wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Any opinions at all out there regarding this?
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC
On 02/12/2009, Julius Davies wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any opinions at all out there regarding this?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-89
>
>
> Mat Booth, the Fedora commons-codec maintainer, left a message today
> on CODEC-89:
> ---
> [...]
> It definitely feels like a regression to me
Hi,
Any opinions at all out there regarding this?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-89
Mat Booth, the Fedora commons-codec maintainer, left a message today
on CODEC-89:
---
[...]
It definitely feels like a regression to me – I'm tempted to apply
this patch to the commons-codec distribut
Hi, Commons Developers,
There's a minor regression in Codec-1.4 that causes two extra white
space characters to appear at the very end of the Base64 output when
using the instance encode() method instead of the static one:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-89
This seems to be causing
I'll take a look this week. My family has the flu ATM, so [codec] is on the
back burner...
G
> -Original Message-
> From: Julius Davies [mailto:juliusdav...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 11:06
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: [codec] regress
CODEC-89 identifies a regression in the commons-codec-1.4 release. A
patch to fix this is attached to CODEC-89.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-89
Any committers interested in considering this patch?
--
yours,
Julius Davies
250-592-2284 (Home)
250-893-4579 (Mobile)
http://julius
14 matches
Mail list logo
