Hi Sebastian, > I would have thought it was safe to allow the protocol to propagate, > so long as it was for the same scheme?
It is hard to tell for what reason design decisions were made at the time. HostConfiguration is mostly used to specify a proxy, and all other required fields are just filled in from an absolute URI. Only if the URI is not absolute will the fields set manually take effect. I'm unable to tell what effect a change in this behavior would have on existing applications. I've learned recently that the scheme name is a bad attribute for identifying protocols, since you might have registered a protocol with id "https" for name "http" because you want to implicitly change an application's behavior to https. I don't feel like touching anything in this area of the 3.x code, but I won't argue if somebody with more insight agrees with you. In the past, it happened maybe twice since I'm on the list that a user stumbled over this behavior, and we never did more than tell them it will work only for relative URIs. If you just cut off the "https:" part of the URI, you should see the protocol you've set take effect. cheers, Roland --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
