You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Chris Black <ch...@lotuscat.com> on 2006/03/22 16:48:12 UTC
[codec] crypto-compat BigInt patch, no feedback for one month
Over a month ago I submitted a proposed patch to commons-codec to add
crypto-compatible BigInteger encoding support to Base64 (bugzilla
#38657). I have not received any feedback on this patch so far and
realize it may not be a priority for others, but I was wondering if
there was anything else I could do to get a committer to consider this
patch. Or perhaps guidance on what I may be doing wrong in terms of the
development/communication process.
From the description in bugzilla:
There are crypto standards that require large integers for keys to be
encoded in
base64 with some special caveats (no sign bit, padding, etc). One of the
standards that requires this is the w3c's XML-Signature standard. This patch
adds this support along with junit tests. This code is taken from the
Apache XML
Security project's own Base64 class and changed to be more readable and add
junit tests.
Thanks in advance,
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [codec] crypto-compat BigInt patch, no feedback for one month
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:48 -0600, Chris Black wrote:
> Over a month ago I submitted a proposed patch to commons-codec to add
> crypto-compatible BigInteger encoding support to Base64 (bugzilla
> #38657). I have not received any feedback on this patch so far and
> realize it may not be a priority for others, but I was wondering if
> there was anything else I could do to get a committer to consider this
> patch. Or perhaps guidance on what I may be doing wrong in terms of the
> development/communication process.
i'm not sure you've done anything particularly wrong. codec's probably a
little short of developer energy ATM and so reports may get a little
dusty. so, posting a mail such as this is the right thing to do in the
circumstances.
i'm not very familiar with codec. hopefully, a committer who is will
step up sometime soon. (it can take a few days to establish
communication.)
if not, i'll try to take a look but it'll probably be the weekend.
i probably won't find the energy to push codec forward in the medium
term so you might find yourself submitting more patches if you need more
changes...
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org