To be truthful, I think we have other tasks that are more important for the release - especially considering your limited amount of time.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this issue? On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:30 PM, David Pollak <[email protected]> wrote: > I think writing the tests is a 2-6 hour task. Writing specs-based tests for > parsers is pretty easy. > If we have to move over to a byte-based parsing paradigm, it's probably > going to be be 1-2 days of work. > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]>wrote: > >> How much effort is involved to switch the parser to the byte-steam? >> Testing the change could be done initially via the UI to speed things >> up. >> >> D. >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:14 PM, David Pollak >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> >> OK - what do we have to do to solve the problem? Rewrite the parser? >> >> >> > >> > I'm not sure. >> > >> > I think there are a couple of things... first, we can write some unit >> tests >> > for the elements of existing parser and see how it's failing for >> particular >> > cases and if there's something that can be done. >> > >> > If that doesn't work, we can change from stream of characters to a stream >> of >> > bytes. Most of the existing parsing logic should work (or be easily >> > ported), but we'll have finer control over the byte-streams for >> non-western >> > character sets. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> D. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:00 PM, David Pollak >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I think part of the problem is that the RFC was written against a >> >> > byte-stream, but we're running the parser against a character stream. >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Xuefeng Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Thank you for your information. >> >> >> What we should do for this now? >> >> >> let the wrong thing stay or find out a resolution? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Why the name is *escape*, anyone could explain? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I think most of the MsgParser concerning URLs is transformed from >> >> >> > RFC1738 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1738.html) BNF notation into >> >> >> > Scala using parser combinators. So for any inconsistencies you've >> >> >> > found the point of reference is this RFC. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > As for the escape, it's a special character which modifies the >> meaning >> >> >> > of the following characters (more info here: >> >> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_character). In the RFC the >> escape >> >> >> > is defined like this: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > escape = "%" hex hex >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Global R&D Center,Shanghai China,Carestream Health, Inc. >> >> >> Tel:(86-21)3852 6101 >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net >> >> > Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 >> >> > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp >> >> > Surf the harmonics >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net >> > Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 >> > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp >> > Surf the harmonics >> > >> > > > > -- > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net > Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp > Surf the harmonics >
