On 28 March 2012 19:29, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:47 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 28 March 2012 17:14, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > Hi All:
>> >
>> > If there is anything you're itching to for for codec 1.7, now is the
>> time.
>>
>> Any comments on CODEC-96 ?
>> Base64 encode() me
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:47 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 28 March 2012 17:14, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Hi All:
> >
> > If there is anything you're itching to for for codec 1.7, now is the
> time.
>
> Any comments on CODEC-96 ?
> Base64 encode() method is no longer thread-safe, breaking clients
> using
On 28 March 2012 17:50, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 03/28/2012 06:47 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 28 March 2012 17:14, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> Hi All:
>>>
>>> If there is anything you're itching to for for codec 1.7, now is the time.
>>
>> Any comments on CODEC-96 ?
>> Base64 encode() method is no longe
On 03/28/2012 06:47 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 28 March 2012 17:14, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Hi All:
>>
>> If there is anything you're itching to for for codec 1.7, now is the time.
>
> Any comments on CODEC-96 ?
> Base64 encode() method is no longer thread-safe, breaking clients
> using it as a shared B