Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Hi Roberto,
>
> When you fixed issue 510 it appears have also fixed another issue
> found with the 1.2 code that was logged later on, see:
>
> https://jersey.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=539
>
> I am guessing that from your comments in 510:
>
> It's a lot worse than that. The following call throws an
> ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException:
> Base64.encode(new byte[] {(byte)128});
>
> but i want to confirm before closing 539 as a dup of 510.
Yes, while working on #510, I fixed the issue later reported as #539 too.
I also added some unit tests to check proper handling of bytes > 0x7F.