Re: form urlencoding, was Re: URI query escapes

On Saturday, June 21, 2003, at 11:47 PM, Laura Werner wrote: I agree, as long as URLEncoder seems to work. Do you think we need to modify URI so that it uses URLEncoder to encode the query part of URIs? In cases where a client has a URL string that may or may not contain query parameters, it w

Re: form urlencoding, was Re: URI query escapes

I know in the product we develop, we switched away from using java.net.URLEncoder because it didn't work properly. Unfortunately the decision was made before my time so I'm not entirely sure of the details and it could well be that the bugs were only present back in JRE 1.1. I'd say that if w

Re: form urlencoding, was Re: URI query escapes

Michael Becke wrote: I propose that we: - form urlencode values passed to HttpMethodBase.setQueryString(NameValuePair[]) - use java.net.URLEncoder for form urlencoding I agree, as long as URLEncoder seems to work. Do you think we need to modify URI so that it uses URLEncoder to encode the qu

Re: form urlencoding, was Re: URI query escapes

I am also wondering why we are not using the java.net.URLEncoder for this (is also does not encode *-_.). I know in the product we develop, we switched away from using java.net.URLEncoder because it didn't work properly. Unfortunately the decision was made before my time so I'm not entirely su

RE: not working with IIS for digest

I don't have internet at work, so it's hard for me to get logs to you guys, but basically I'm using IIS 5.1 and the digest always causes a 500 internal server error. The exact same credentials for NTLM and Basic work fine, has anyone else tried using digest with IIS ? I'll try to bring some log

form urlencoding, was Re: URI query escapes

Laura, After looking into this some more I agree that query parameters should be form urlencoded. The query param=value convention is an HTML specification and has nothing to do with URIs. Fortunately it turns out that form urlencoded values conform to the specification for URI queries. Whi

RE: PATCH org.apache.commons.httpclient.methods.multipart.FilePart

Hey Adrian, Its in http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20986 I put it source in the description and attached it. Eric -Original Message- From: Adrian Sutton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 12:01 AM To: Commons HttpClient Project Subject: Re: PA

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 20986] - Contributed utility for determing content type from file type extension

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 20986] New: - Contributed utility for determing content type from file type extension

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: NTLM Documentation

The link has now been added in CVS and will appear next time the site is updated. Thanks Eric, Adrian Sutton. On Friday, June 20, 2003, at 11:20 AM, Adrian Sutton wrote: Eric, Thanks for pointing this out. I will add a link to it to the HttpClient NTLM authentication for those who are curio