On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 23:18 +0100, Roland Weber wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
>
> > Why not make NO_HOST a little prettier?
> >
> > public static final HttpHost NO_HOST = new HttpHost("", -1, "");
>
> I chose an IP address for the host to make sure that
> there will be no DNS lookup (though there might still
> be a reverse lookup). Can we rely on an exception
> being triggered for an empty string?
I believe so. We can expect any sane hostname resolution system to not
resolve a blank hostname to an IP.
> And can we rely
> on ourselves not adding empty string checks to the
> HttpHost constructor?
>
I believe so. This is what unit tests are for.
> -1 is a magic number used in HttpHost, I wanted to
> avoid that.
>
But there is nothing that really prevents it from being used in NO_HOST,
is there?
> I also want to be able to identify NO_HOST when it
> appears in debug output, which is easier if the
> attributes are not empty.
>
I believe this is just a matter of having a reasonable #toString()
implementation.
Cheers
Oleg
> cheers,
> Roland
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
