I'm going to hold off on this change (for now at least) -- it's not just
that four classes would need renaming (including TurnoverReferersTask,
JPARefererManagerImpl, and RefererTest), there's "referer" member
variables and accessor methods within those classes that would need
updating, affecting roughly 25 other classes that call any of those four
classes' methods, possibly more in the ORM files as the database table
is called "Referer" still (which presumably, in order to be consistent,
we should rename as well, bringing up lots of backward compatibility
headaches.)
I'm also not fully persuaded of the validity of the change (even if it
were simple to do) as "Referer" can be considered a proper noun given
that it's defined in the HTTP specification and therefore can't be a
misspelling. If the HTTP specification called a referrer a "pumpkin"
then we'd have an "PumpkinManager", "pumpkn" then a "PumpknManager",
"xxxxx" then an "XxxxxManager", etc., none of which would be
misspellings. So we have "RefererManager".
Glen
On 03/24/2013 09:15 PM, Anil Gangolli wrote:
Part of the origin of the problem is that the HTTP 1.0 Header has the
misspelling. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_referer for the history. I think I
made an effort long ago to correct it in our codebase where it was not
a direct reference to the header name, but we may have regressed.
--a.
On 3/24/13 8:09 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Glen Mazza <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'll look at the source more thoroughly; we seem to be 50/50 between
the
two spellings. The *only* reason why I might want to apply it to
5.0.2 is
because this change affects several files and it makes it easier to
backport *other* patches and security fixes when the underlying
files are
identical.
Very good point.
- Dave
On 03/24/2013 09:22 AM, Dave wrote:
I could go either way on this one, so if you want to take action
please
decide and go ahead.
However, I don't think we should address this in 5.0.x -- I think we
should
only address security issues and critical bugs there and a spelling
error
does not feel like a critical bug.
Thanks,
- Dave
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Glen Mazza <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi, I'd like to implement https://issues.apache.org/****
jira/browse/ROL-1229
<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/ROL-1229><
https://**issues.apache.org/jira/browse/**ROL-1229<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ROL-1229>
,
on at least 5.1 (possibly 5.0.2 as well). Any critical backwards
compatibility problems if I do so? Another alternative is to
close this
issue as a "Won't Fix". (As "referer" is an HTTP term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****HTTP_referer#Origin_of_the_****
term_referer<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**HTTP_referer#Origin_of_the_**term_referer>
<http://en.**wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_**referer#Origin_of_the_term_**
referer<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_referer#Origin_of_the_term_referer>
,
misspelled or not.)
Thanks,
Glen
