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. > > > > How about using DecoderException instead? > > > > Seems just as appropriate to me. > > > Fine with me. >
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 to convert the DecoderException to an unchecked error. Thoughts? > > Jochen > > -- > Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before > you break 'em. > > -- (Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
