Re: [PATCH] relative URIs

[Jeffrey Dever]

(Jeff rubs his head and tries to figure out what that means)

So you mean that this is a bug:

- fixes the case when the second arg to URI(URI,URI) is just a fragment
(e.g. "#s"). According to RFC 2396 a relative reference that is just a
fragment should resolve to the "current document" plus the fragment. I
took this to mean that URI( "http://a/b/c/d;p?q";, "#s" ) should resolve
to "http://a/b/c/d;p?q#s";. Please let me know if this seems incorrect.

But this is a misunderstanding:

- changes setURI() to no longer ignores fragments, getURI() and
toString() now return the full URI including the fragment.

Mike,
Can you seperate this into two seperate patches. I'll commit the "first" one, but will need confirmation on the second.


Sung-Gu wrote:

I guess the first one may be ok.. (not second one)
(Perhaps it might be compared with included test cases
that it's not consistent with httpclient test cases.)

Sung-Gu

P.S. Someone modify them comittable to httpclient?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Dever" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Commons HttpClient Project" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] relative URIs

Sung-Gu,

Do you approve of this patch?


Sung-Gu wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Becke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PATCH] relative URIs

Attached is a patch and test case for a few minor bugs I discovered in
the URI(URI, URI) constructor. The patch changes the following:

- fixes the case when the second arg to URI(URI,URI) is just a fragment
(e.g. "#s"). According to RFC 2396 a relative reference that is just a
fragment should resolve to the "current document" plus the fragment. I
took this to mean that URI( "http://a/b/c/d;p?q";, "#s" ) should resolve
to "http://a/b/c/d;p?q#s";. Please let me know if this seems incorrect.

Isn't it? then a bug... :(
It seems like query not to be resolved ...

- changes setURI() to no longer ignores fragments, getURI() and
toString() now return the full URI including the fragment.

There is getURIReference(). That's not like getURI().
Actually, URI and URI-reference is different...

In common, on both protocol and document uses,
an URI is effective... not URI-reference. That's why...

Sung-Gu

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:

<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

For additional commands, e-mail:

<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>