Good point Hadrian. Also maybe somebody out there is depending on this
functionality? Maybe we could just log a warning if we see a second '?'
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My personal preference would be to not add extra validation. The main
> reason is that there are quite a few other characters that are not allowed
> either ('=' for instance) and in the general case url (semantical)
> validation is not an easy thing to do (i.e. the benefit would be quite
> limited imho). The url parser did the right thing, and I think we could
> rely on developers testing their apps and make sure that the url they pass
> is indeed the intended one.
>
> So a non-binding -1 from me.
>
> Cheers
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
>
> Hi
>>
>> I was messing CAMEL-1096 for camel-mail and I mistyped the URI adding
>> a 2nd ? char in the URI string.
>> However this one passes the validation. I was wondering if that normal?
>>
>> eg:
>> pop3://localhost?username=james&mail.pop3.forgettopheaders=true?ddd=sss
>>
>> Would validate into 2 parameters
>> username=james
>> mail.pop3.forgettopheaders=true?ddd=sss
>>
>> So the 2nd parameter value is: true?ddd=sss
>>
>> I was wondering if we should add some validation that a 2nd ? is not
>> allowed in the URI string?
>>
>>
>> /Claus Ibsen
>> Apache Camel Committer
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>
--
Cheers,
Jon
http://janstey.blogspot.com/
