Samit, Many thanks for having looked into this issue.
I finally had enough time on my hands to have studied the RFC 2965 spec implementation in details. I'll start giving you my feedback as a series of small patches, comments and ideas as of tomorrow. By the way, has anyone from Google been inquiring regarding the outcome of your "summer of code" project? Did anyone inform you what steps need to be taken to have your project assessed? Cheers, Oleg On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 10:05 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG╥ > RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT > <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36457>. > ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND╥ > INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36457 > > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-10 10:05 ------- > > I will do some research into the behavior of common browsers - IE, firefox, > > mozilla. If most browsers do override the cookie in such a case, then we can > > implement this behavior in BrowserCompatibilitySpec. > > As per my research, IE 6.0, firefox 1.0, lynx, netscape 8.0 follow the RFC > 2019 > specification as far as this behavior is concerned. If cookies having the same > name/value and coming from the domain but different paths are received, they > are > stored as separate cookies, and subsequent requests will send all cookies to > server. I haven't tried Mozilla though but I feel it most likely follows this > convention since Firefox works correctly. > > Since the browser compatibility spec implements this way, we don't need to > change anything. We can consider this issue closed. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
