I'd posted this to commons-user back in July, never got an answer and went
on with my reqs using a regex instead.
I saw Martin's post today on a 1.1.3 release and figured I should I forward
this to see if it was a bug or only that fully 'resolved' urls are valid or
something and I was using incorrectly?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Reilly
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 11:53 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [validator] UrlValidator
>
>
> First, I'm a newbie with validator, so maybe I'm just not using
> it correctly.
> I was hoping to use validator library to validate url strings
> from a form. I'm finding the validation too strict for my use
> case. I have a form and want to validate the the user entered a
> valid url in 'simple user' terms of valid.
>
> But...I added this test case/method to
> org.apache.commons.validator.UrlTest; the url is valid from my POV.
>
> public void testSanity() {
> UrlValidator v = new UrlValidator();
> assertTrue(v.isValid("http://www.google.com";));
> }
>
> But it fails.
>
> Also testing http://www.google.com with:
> isValidScheme : false
> isValidAuthority : false
> isValidPath : false
> isValidQuery : true
> isValidFragment: true
>
> Can anyone explain the UrlValidator.isValidXXXXX ?
> Why would query and fragment be valid (I guess because they
> aren't specified. I'm good with that.)
> But can't port and path be optional not specified as well?
> Also why is the scheme (http://) not valid?
>
> Oddly, the url http://www.google.com:80/test passes isValid(),
> but fails isValidScheme(), etc..
>
> Thanks,
> -TR
>
> (btw: Testing against HEAD / 1.1.3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
