I have not said that it validaites. I said that it can :)
2006/9/14, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 9/14/06, Alexey Petrenko wrote: > > 2006/9/14, Stepan Mishura : > > On 9/14/06, Alexey Petrenko wrote: > > > > > > 2006/9/14, Stepan Mishura : > > > > On 9/14/06, Andrew Zhang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There are two reasons: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Spec has explicitly pointed out "No validation of the inputs is > > > > > performed > > > > > by this constructor." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this spec. quotation above there is one thing that confuses me - > > > "THIS > > > > CONSTRUCTOR". May this mean that validation of inputs is perform, > for > > > > example, only by corresponding protocol handler? > > > > > > > > This looks logical because only protocol handler can verify whether > > > params > > > > are correct or not. > > > Almost right. But if RI passes all the parameters to protocol handler > > > then it should throw unknown protocol for all these cases. Since "ss" > > > is unknown protocol. > > > And you do not need a protocol handler to understand that port number > > > can not have a negative value :) > > Not agree. What if I add a custom protocol handler that accepts negative > > port values? > It will break RFC 2396 (Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic > Syntax) [1] where port is specified as "port = *digit". And this is > unsigned value. Then the spec. is not quite correct - the constructor validates some inputs :-) -Stepan <SNIP> ------------------------------------------------------ Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Alexey A. Petrenko Intel Middleware Products Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
