You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by "Ben Aldrich (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2010/09/15 19:19:32 UTC
[jira] Created: (JDKIM-21) potential issues?
potential issues?
------------------
Key: JDKIM-21
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDKIM-21
Project: JAMES jDKIM
Issue Type: Question
Components: library
Affects Versions: 0.2, 1.0
Environment: java version "1.6.0_18" ubuntu 10.04
Reporter: Ben Aldrich
Priority: Minor
I ran the jdkim library through find bugs and found a few things. Some things i thought you might be doing because of backwards compatibility. So here is the quick list.
DKIMVerifier:
records.size() == 0 instead of records.isEmpty()
fields.size() == 0 instead of fields.isEmpty()
use of hashtable (it's deprecated)
bodyHashJobs.size() == 0 instead of bodyHashJobs.isEmpty()
verifiedSignatures.size() == 0 instead of verifiedSignatures.isEmpty()
DKIMCommon:
done = new Integer(0) instead of Integer.valueOf(0) *I noticed you have a comment for this already?
DNSPublicKeyRecordRetriever:
use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
SignatureRecordImpl:
use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
TagValue:
use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
[jira] Closed: (JDKIM-21) potential issues?
Posted by "Ben Aldrich (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDKIM-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Ben Aldrich closed JDKIM-21.
----------------------------
Thanks again!
-Ben
> potential issues?
> ------------------
>
> Key: JDKIM-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDKIM-21
> Project: JAMES jDKIM
> Issue Type: Question
> Components: library
> Affects Versions: 0.2, 1.0
> Environment: java version "1.6.0_18" ubuntu 10.04
> Reporter: Ben Aldrich
> Assignee: Stefano Bagnara
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.2
>
>
> I ran the jdkim library through find bugs and found a few things. Some things i thought you might be doing because of backwards compatibility. So here is the quick list.
> DKIMVerifier:
> records.size() == 0 instead of records.isEmpty()
> fields.size() == 0 instead of fields.isEmpty()
> use of hashtable (it's deprecated)
> bodyHashJobs.size() == 0 instead of bodyHashJobs.isEmpty()
> verifiedSignatures.size() == 0 instead of verifiedSignatures.isEmpty()
> DKIMCommon:
> done = new Integer(0) instead of Integer.valueOf(0) *I noticed you have a comment for this already?
> DNSPublicKeyRecordRetriever:
> use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
> SignatureRecordImpl:
> use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
> TagValue:
> use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
[jira] Commented: (JDKIM-21) potential issues?
Posted by "Stefano Bagnara (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDKIM-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12909830#action_12909830 ]
Stefano Bagnara commented on JDKIM-21:
--------------------------------------
At the beginning jdkim was java 1.4 compatible. Now we can "improve" that stuff with 1.5 source code.
Thank you for reporting!
> potential issues?
> ------------------
>
> Key: JDKIM-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDKIM-21
> Project: JAMES jDKIM
> Issue Type: Question
> Components: library
> Affects Versions: 0.2, 1.0
> Environment: java version "1.6.0_18" ubuntu 10.04
> Reporter: Ben Aldrich
> Assignee: Stefano Bagnara
> Priority: Minor
>
> I ran the jdkim library through find bugs and found a few things. Some things i thought you might be doing because of backwards compatibility. So here is the quick list.
> DKIMVerifier:
> records.size() == 0 instead of records.isEmpty()
> fields.size() == 0 instead of fields.isEmpty()
> use of hashtable (it's deprecated)
> bodyHashJobs.size() == 0 instead of bodyHashJobs.isEmpty()
> verifiedSignatures.size() == 0 instead of verifiedSignatures.isEmpty()
> DKIMCommon:
> done = new Integer(0) instead of Integer.valueOf(0) *I noticed you have a comment for this already?
> DNSPublicKeyRecordRetriever:
> use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
> SignatureRecordImpl:
> use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
> TagValue:
> use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
[jira] Assigned: (JDKIM-21) potential issues?
Posted by "Stefano Bagnara (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDKIM-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Stefano Bagnara reassigned JDKIM-21:
------------------------------------
Assignee: Stefano Bagnara
> potential issues?
> ------------------
>
> Key: JDKIM-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDKIM-21
> Project: JAMES jDKIM
> Issue Type: Question
> Components: library
> Affects Versions: 0.2, 1.0
> Environment: java version "1.6.0_18" ubuntu 10.04
> Reporter: Ben Aldrich
> Assignee: Stefano Bagnara
> Priority: Minor
>
> I ran the jdkim library through find bugs and found a few things. Some things i thought you might be doing because of backwards compatibility. So here is the quick list.
> DKIMVerifier:
> records.size() == 0 instead of records.isEmpty()
> fields.size() == 0 instead of fields.isEmpty()
> use of hashtable (it's deprecated)
> bodyHashJobs.size() == 0 instead of bodyHashJobs.isEmpty()
> verifiedSignatures.size() == 0 instead of verifiedSignatures.isEmpty()
> DKIMCommon:
> done = new Integer(0) instead of Integer.valueOf(0) *I noticed you have a comment for this already?
> DNSPublicKeyRecordRetriever:
> use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
> SignatureRecordImpl:
> use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
> TagValue:
> use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
[jira] Resolved: (JDKIM-21) potential issues?
Posted by "Stefano Bagnara (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDKIM-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Stefano Bagnara resolved JDKIM-21.
----------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 0.2
Resolution: Fixed
> potential issues?
> ------------------
>
> Key: JDKIM-21
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDKIM-21
> Project: JAMES jDKIM
> Issue Type: Question
> Components: library
> Affects Versions: 0.2, 1.0
> Environment: java version "1.6.0_18" ubuntu 10.04
> Reporter: Ben Aldrich
> Assignee: Stefano Bagnara
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.2
>
>
> I ran the jdkim library through find bugs and found a few things. Some things i thought you might be doing because of backwards compatibility. So here is the quick list.
> DKIMVerifier:
> records.size() == 0 instead of records.isEmpty()
> fields.size() == 0 instead of fields.isEmpty()
> use of hashtable (it's deprecated)
> bodyHashJobs.size() == 0 instead of bodyHashJobs.isEmpty()
> verifiedSignatures.size() == 0 instead of verifiedSignatures.isEmpty()
> DKIMCommon:
> done = new Integer(0) instead of Integer.valueOf(0) *I noticed you have a comment for this already?
> DNSPublicKeyRecordRetriever:
> use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
> SignatureRecordImpl:
> use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
> TagValue:
> use of StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org