Re: [Mono-dev] System.dll few patches for review

2006-10-06 Thread Andreas Nahr
Care to explain why? I'm aware that Invariant will be (invariant-culture) sensitive, however it IMHO would fix the bug. I also agree that using String.Compare with OrdinalIgnoreCase would be the best option, however unfortunatelly that is .Net 2.0 only. String.CompareOrdinal() is obviously

Re: [Mono-dev] System.dll few patches for review

2006-10-06 Thread Atsushi Eno
Because there are characters that are ignored even in invariant comparison. Well, I agree that instead was not proper here. It should be additionally. Atsushi Eno Andreas Nahr wrote: Care to explain why? I'm aware that Invariant will be (invariant-culture) sensitive, however it IMHO would

Re: [Mono-dev] System.dll few patches for review

2006-10-05 Thread Andrew Skiba
Hello Sebastien. I ran mono-api-check on both 1.1 and 2.0 profile, and it did not see any difference after I removed IEnumerable. So I will commit this patch and check class statuses of 1.1 and 2.0 in a few days. * X509CertificateCollection.patch - remove unnecessary overload If this

Re: [Mono-dev] System.dll few patches for review

2006-10-05 Thread Sebastien Pouliot
Hello Andrew, Thanks for spotting/fixing this! On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 00:19 -0700, Andrew Skiba wrote: Hello Sebastien. I ran mono-api-check on both 1.1 and 2.0 profile, and it did not see any difference after I removed IEnumerable. So I will commit this patch and check class statuses of

Re: [Mono-dev] System.dll few patches for review

2006-10-05 Thread Andreas Nahr
Sorry if this is already handled, just looked over the list and found this bug: Index: System.Net/DigestClient.cs === --- System.Net/DigestClient.cs (revision 66034) +++ System.Net/DigestClient.cs (working copy) @@ -248,9

Re: [Mono-dev] System.dll few patches for review

2006-10-05 Thread Atsushi Eno
You are still wrong :-) InvariantCulture still causes culture sensitive comparison. Use String.CompareOrdinal() or CompareOptions.Ordinal instead. Atsushi Eno Andreas Nahr wrote: Sorry if this is already handled, just looked over the list and found this bug: Index:

Re: [Mono-dev] System.dll few patches for review

2006-10-04 Thread Sebastien Pouliot
Hello Andrew, On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 10:28 -0700, Andrew Skiba wrote: Hello Sebastien, Part of them is needed to omit TARGET_JVM, so code will be common. There are no TARGET_JVM in the two files. As I said, these changes are needed to omit TARGET_JVM. oops *

[Mono-dev] System.dll few patches for review

2006-10-03 Thread Andrew Skiba
Hello. Please review these patches for System.dll. Part of them is needed to omit TARGET_JVM, so code will be common. * DigestClient.patch - use MD5.Create instead of HashAlgorithm.Create (MD5) * X509CertificateCollection.patch - remove unnecessary overload Thank you. Andrew.

Re: [Mono-dev] System.dll few patches for review

2006-10-03 Thread Raja R Harinath
Hi, Andrew Skiba [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please review these patches for System.dll. Part of them is needed to omit TARGET_JVM, so code will be common. * DigestClient.patch - use MD5.Create instead of HashAlgorithm.Create (MD5) * X509CertificateCollection.patch - remove unnecessary

Re: [Mono-dev] System.dll few patches for review

2006-10-03 Thread Andrew Skiba
Hello Sebastien, Part of them is needed to omit TARGET_JVM, so code will be common. There are no TARGET_JVM in the two files. As I said, these changes are needed to omit TARGET_JVM. * DigestClient.patch - use MD5.Create instead of HashAlgorithm.Create (MD5) This is ok in the