No thoughts on this one? I'd like to keep my implementation very "vanilla" with respect to the JAX-RS spec, but I am using CXF as my JAX-RS implementation during testing. I just want to make sure I'm not doing any unnecessary CXF-specific work-arounds in my code. If we were to "fix" it, though, it might introduce a change in behavior and that's not good either.
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 8:49 AM James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > I think I misspoke here. Even if I set the header split property, the > ContainerRequestContext.getHeaders() still returns concatenated values, but > if I use a @Context annotation to inject HttpHeaders, I can get back the > header values individually (not concatenated). If I take away the header > split property, then HttpHeaders starts returning concatenated headers. I > probably should have said so in my original email, but I'm using CXF > v3.2.6. > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 8:35 AM James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > wrote: > >> I found a thread about this topic from 2015, but it seems to be talking >> about client-side: >> >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-users/201504.mbox/%3c552bed6b.3000...@gmail.com%3E >> >> I'm writing a CorsFilter and I need to get the list of >> Access-Control-Request-Headers to evaluate them. If I do this: >> >> JAXRSServerFactoryBean factory = new JAXRSServerFactoryBean(); >> factory.getProperties(true).put("org.apache.cxf.http.header.split", true); >> >> then everything works fine. However, it seems odd (even after reading >> the referred javadocs) that the expected behavior would be concatenated >> values. The return type is MultivaluedMap<String,String>. If the intent >> was that there would always be only one "value" in the map for each key, >> then why would they say to return a MultivaluedMap<String,String>? Perhaps >> this is a problem with the spec or something, but I can't really see in the >> spec where it specifically says to return the values this way. It does >> have a @see pointing to the getHeaderString(String), where it does say >> they'd be concatenated. I'm sure I'm missing something here. Thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> >> James >> >>
