Chris,
Looks good for me.
Thank you for doing it.
-Dmitry
On 2013-06-28 13:36, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> The latest webrev is
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8015799/webrev.03/
>
> We end up with:
>
> private String filterHeaderField(String name, String value) {
> if (value ==
John I will sponsor this changes for you.
-Chris.
P.S. I couldn't resist doing some minor cleanup in the test, hope that
is ok.
On 06/28/2013 10:36 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
The latest webrev is
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8015799/webrev.03/
We end up with:
private String filt
The latest webrev is
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8015799/webrev.03/
We end up with:
private String filterHeaderField(String name, String value) {
if (value == null)
return null;
if (SET_COOKIE.equalsIgnoreCase(name) ||
SET_COOKIE2.equalsIgnore
Chris,
1. I'm not sure it's a correct to return null rather then empty value,
but you understand better what is happening, so I'm leaving it up
to you.
2. It might be better to move
2805 if (value == null)
2806 return null;
under if(SET_COOKIE ...), i.e. to ll. 281
Looks fine to me John.
-Chris.
On 27/06/2013 17:09, John Zavgren wrote:
All:
I just posted a webrev image of the latest changes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8015799/webrev.03/
Thanks!
John
On 06/26/2013 04:52 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
Alright, thanks for the clarification - the sour
All:
I just posted a webrev image of the latest changes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8015799/webrev.03/
Thanks!
John
On 06/26/2013 04:52 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
Alright, thanks for the clarification - the source code changes are
good as they are then.
- Kurchi
On 6/26/2013 1:49 PM
Alright, thanks for the clarification - the source code changes are good
as they are then.
- Kurchi
On 6/26/2013 1:49 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
To link this email thread, both in the archives, and for others. The
call for review on this bug started with:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/
To link this email thread, both in the archives, and for others. The
call for review on this bug started with:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-dev/2013-June/006607.html
On 06/26/2013 08:22 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
On 6/26/2013 12:17 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
Hi John,
Why not chan
On 6/26/2013 12:17 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
Hi John,
Why not change lines 2810-2811 to:
if (value == null || value.length() == 0)
return value;
I meant return null. For other cookie-headers too, is there any reason
for us not returning null if the length of value is 0?
Also, lot
Hi John,
Why not change lines 2810-2811 to:
if (value == null || value.length() == 0)
return value;
Also, lots of formatting issue in the test, especially in
TestCookieHandler, try-catch block indentation is off in line 54.
Its also best to stop the server in a finally clause at
On 06/20/2013 01:57 PM, John Zavgren wrote:
Chris:
Your idea of moving the empty string check so that it's header specific
is prudent... that's less likely to have unforeseen consequences. I'll
make the change ASAP.
and maybe a test?
-Chris.
John
On 06/20/2013 05:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Chris:
Your idea of moving the empty string check so that it's header specific
is prudent... that's less likely to have unforeseen consequences. I'll
make the change ASAP.
John
On 06/20/2013 05:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Thanks John,
I just did a quick test with the testcase attached to the
Thanks John,
I just did a quick test with the testcase attached to the bug report (
below), and the server is indeed replying with a Set-Cookie header with
no value ( treated as empty string )
Since all header retrieval passes through filterHeaderField, in one way
or another, I'm a little c
13 matches
Mail list logo
