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 > > > > public static byte[] decodeBase64() > > > > would need to change - or the method needs to convert the > > DecoderException to an unchecked error. > > > > Thoughts? > > > In such cases I'd recommend to catch the Exception and convert it into > an UndeclaredThrowableException. However, I'd also deprecate the > method and add a successor. I'd discourage things like adding a > boolean flag that suppresses the exception. > >
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. So maybe there is a need to preserve compatibility after all. Perhaps one way round this would be to add method(s) that enforce validation? > > 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]
