DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38300>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38300 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-01-17 17:05 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Why does it use the HTTP date format and not ISO 8601? (sorry if I missed > > something on lenya-dev) > > It follows RFC 2616 " Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1" where the > last-modified header value is defined as a HTTP-date value as specified > by RFC 1123 "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support". > Please tell me if there's something wrong following these specs. I agree that this is the most useful format to set HTTP headers, because you can't apply an i18n transformation; to use the date in a web page footer, you could do so. But should we really use a purpose-specific design, even if other reasonable purposes exist? It's not a big issue here, but for SoC reasons I'd rather use one date standard in all interfaces, and provide tools to convert it. > > Is the empty ParameterException catch clause really appropriate? Maybe we > > should > > add a comment why it is safe to swallow it. > > Will add a replacement patch that handles the exception properly. Thanks a lot! -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
