On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just so I understand, you're saying that an instance of URLConnection is > assumed to be a JarURLConnection and in some cases it's not. I don't know > that there's much to decide. If the API says URLConnection and there's no > documentation/comment/assertion to indicate that is MUST be a > JarURLConnection, then the code needs to be patched to support this > condition. It's probably just some quickly written code that no one came > back to. > > Do you have a suggested patch for fixing the class? I'm working on it. My suggestion is simple. If we come across an exception situation, back-trace and use the default implementation. As the issue explains, RI handles this, in some manner (they probably use a different approach) and does not throw an exception, so if we are to throw an exception which might sound logical and more explanatory we would still be differing from RI. Therefore, unfortunately in order to not have a difference, we will need to internally handle the exception and use the default behaviour, this might sound a hack in some way. What do you think? Regards, Senaka
