Re: [codec] regression in 1.4

2009-12-02 Thread Julius Davies
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() {

Re: [codec] regression in 1.4

2009-12-02 Thread sebb
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

Re: [codec] regression in 1.4

2009-12-02 Thread Julius Davies
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

Re: [codec] regression in 1.4

2009-12-02 Thread sebb
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

Re: [codec] regression in 1.4

2009-12-02 Thread Mat Booth
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

Re: [codec] regression in 1.4

2009-12-01 Thread Julius Davies
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

Re: [codec] regression in 1.4

2009-12-01 Thread Julius Davies
. > >> >>  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

Re: [codec] regression in 1.4

2009-12-01 Thread sebb
> > > > -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:

RE: [codec] regression in 1.4

2009-12-01 Thread Gary Gregory
: 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

Re: [codec] regression in 1.4

2009-12-01 Thread sebb
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

Re: [codec] regression in 1.4

2009-12-01 Thread Julius Davies
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

RE: [codec] regression in 1.4 (CODEC-89)

2009-11-01 Thread Gary Gregory
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] regression in 1.4 (CODEC-89) >