Base64 whitelists did not work due to use of canonical rather than binary name

[jglick]

Mistake in #309/#310.

[jglick]

This plugin might be a good candidate for JEP-229:

• no end-user functionality, nobody should look at version number
• frequent little fixes & enhancements
• history of absentee maintainers (not sure about now)

[dwnusbaum]

Maybe we could add an assertion here so that any issues with the static whitelists will cause the plugin's tests to fail?

Suggested change

	// TODO this should be more strict: binary name is required for nested classes
	return ClassUtils.getClass(name);
	Class<?> clazz = ClassUtils.getClass(name);
	assert clazz.getName().equals(name); // The whitelists require binary names, but ClassUtils allows various syntaxes.
	return clazz;

[jglick]

Well that would basically be the same as

Suggested change

	// TODO this should be more strict: binary name is required for nested classes
	return ClassUtils.getClass(name);
	return Class.forName(name);

which will not work (AFAIK) because name is sometimes something like int or Object[]. We want to enforce use of binary name on the actual class name portion of the string, while still processing special syntaxes that ClassUtils supports. I spent a few minutes thinking about it and did not come up with a simple fix so I moved on.