Review/comment needed for the new public java.util.Base64 class

[Ulf Zibis]

Hi Sherman,

thanks for your details.
Has this discussion been on the list, and I have missed it?

I see a problem with hiding the "singleton" choice:
Developers might tend to repetitively invoke
     public static Encoder getEncoder(int lineLength, byte[] lineSeparator)
instead reusing the the same instance.
(Note: It should not harm, to move the
      Objects.requireNonNull(lineSeparator);
to the general private constructor.)
In case of a public constant
     Encoder.RFC4648
... developer would be aware about the re-usability of the encoder.

IMHO, the get...() methods are just waste of source lines and bytecode footprint.

But in contrast to the v4 I like the inner class approach: Base64.De/Encoder.

Little nit: In lines 89,100,127,128,138,149,159 the indentation is 5 instead 4.

-Ulf



Am 30.10.2012 02:51, schrieb Xueming Shen:
> Ulf, my apology. Some how I missed your email.
>
> We tried various prototypes for this simple utility class. See
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/base64/
>
> The v4 might be close to the static constant approach you suggested. While It's hard
> to draw a clear line on which one is better, we concluded that the proposed approach
> provides the best balance among usability, readability and extensibility. For example,
> the "get" approach allows us to hide the "singleton" choice to the implementation. It
> provides a consistent interface "fixed" basic/url/mime type en/decoder and the configurable
> floating length/linefeed encoder.
>
> -Sherman
>
> On 10/29/12 11:15 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
>> Hi Sherman,
>>
>> can you give me a short answer please?
>>
>> -Ulf
>>
>> Am 23.10.2012 16:57, schrieb Ulf Zibis:
>>> Am 23.10.2012 15:04, schrieb Alan Bateman:
>>>> I'm not sure that getUrlEncoder is the most suitable name to get a base64url encoder. The 
>>>> reason is that the method name makes it sound like it returns a URLEncoder or or at least an 
>>>> encoder for HTML forms. While more verbose, getBase64UrlEncoder is clear that it returns a 
>>>> base64url encoder.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering, why there are those get... methods at all.
>>>
>>> Alternatively you could make the appropriate constructors and predifined static variants public. 
>>> So one only should use:
>>> Base64.Encoder encoder = new Base64.Encoder(...);
>>> Base64.Encoder urlEncoder = Base64.Encoder.RFC4648_URLSAFE;
>>>
>>> No need for those looong method names.
>>>
>>> -Ulf
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>