Re: URL validation and capitals

2016-07-28 12:48 GMT+02:00 Greg Huber : > Ok, forgot about this one, WW-4671 > Me never forget ;-) > May be it would be easier to lowercase the url to start rather than change > the rather complex regex ? It's just a matter of using Pattern.CASE_I

Re: URL validation and capitals

Ok, forgot about this one, WW-4671 May be it would be easier to lowercase the url to start rather than change the rather complex regex ? Cheers. On 28 July 2016 at 10:47, Lukasz Lenart wrote: > 2016-05-09 8:38 GMT+02:00 Greg Huber : > > A while

Re: URL validation and capitals

2016-05-09 8:38 GMT+02:00 Greg Huber : > A while back I though I read a fix on capitals on the url validator. It > now seems to be blacking them again. > > http://www.appache.org/TEST > > I do have some URL's with capitals so it might have worked at some time? Yeah, looks like the RegEx check is

URL validation and capitals

A while back I though I read a fix on capitals on the url validator. It now seems to be blacking them again. http://www.appache.org/TEST I do have some URL's with capitals so it might have worked at some time? Cheers Greg

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28148] - Url Validation Configuration Options

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 30873] - Struts Validation - Client Side URL validation fails when using regular expression

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28148] - Url Validation Configuration Options

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: URL validation

Url validation is part of Commons Validator rather than Struts so it might be more appropriate to raise it there. Also, this is subject to an outstanding bug: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30686 Niall - Original Message - From: "David Bowers" <[EMAIL P

URL validation

There was a very good conversation in April on this list discussing URL validation, in particular, is an http URL valid if no path is specified? For example http://google.com. See this link: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@struts.apache.org/msg00037.html for more detail. It seemed like the

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 30873] - Struts Validation - Client Side URL validation fails when using regular expression

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30873 Struts Validation - Client Side URL validation fails when using regular expression [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Stat

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 30873] - Struts Validation - Client Side URL validation fails when using regular expression

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30873 Struts Validation - Client Side URL validation fails when using regular expression --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-08-26 18:24 --- The problem appears to be the forward slashes (such as http://, but there are also some others) in your expr

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 30873] New: - Struts Validation - Client Side URL validation fails when using regular expression

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30873 Struts Validation - Client Side URL validation fails when using regular expression Summary: Struts Validation - Client Side URL validation fails when using regular expression Product: Struts Version: 1.1 Final Pl

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28148] - Url Validation Configuration Options

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28148 Url Validation Configuration Options [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Reso

Re: Url Validation Configuration Options

There isn't any dependancy with Commons Bug 28190. Bug 28190 changes commons UrlValidator to return an "error code" - if that patch gets accepted into commons validator then we could look at changing the Struts url validation to take advantage of this feature, but from my positio

Re: Url Validation Configuration Options

I've submitted a new patch with your suggestion. Niall - Original Message - From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 4:33 AM Subject: Re: Url Validation Configuration O

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28148] - Url Validation Configuration Options

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28148 Url Validation Configuration Options --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-15 10:05 --- I've attached a new patch with the changes suggested by David Graham on the developers list. David Graham wrote: "The patch looks reasonable to

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28148] - Url Validation Configuration Options

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28148 Url Validation Configuration Options --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-15 09:59 --- Created an attachment (id=11247) FieldChecks - configure url validation options (ver

Re: Url Validation Configuration Options

es = null; ... schemes = (String[])schemeList.toArray(new String[schemeList.size()]); or maybe skip the List to array step by using StringTokenizer.countTokens(). David > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28148 > > "The current url validation in struts (validateU

Re: Url Validation Configuration Options

Ted Husted wrote: Any thoughts on this one? http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28148 "The current url validation in struts (validateUrl method in FieldChecks) only uses the default url configuration options. "I am attaching a patch that will allow the following opt

Url Validation Configuration Options

Any thoughts on this one? http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28148 "The current url validation in struts (validateUrl method in FieldChecks) only uses the default url configuration options. "I am attaching a patch that will allow the following options to be

Re: URL validation

-Rob -Original Message- From: Richard Bywater [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2004 10:06 PM To: 'Struts Developers List' Subject: Re: URL validation If we're talking URLs aren't we looking at the wrong RFC? RFC1738 has this section: 3.3. HTTP Th

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28148] - Url Validation Configuration Options

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28148 Url Validation Configuration Options --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-02 03:07 --- OK I was mis-understanding what a fragment was and have now tested it successfully (I think) I used the following value: http://www.abc.com/xyz#123

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28148] - Url Validation Configuration Options

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28148 Url Validation Configuration Options [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||PatchAva

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28148] - Url Validation Configuration Options

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28148 Url Validation Configuration Options --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-02 02:25 --- Created an attachment (id=11096) FieldChecks - configure url validation options --

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28148] New: - Url Validation Configuration Options

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28148 Url Validation Configuration Options Summary: Url Validation Configuration Options Product: Struts Version: Nightly Build Platform: Other OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: Enhancement Pr

Re: URL validation

ter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2004 10:06 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: Re: URL validation > > If we're talking URLs aren't we looking at the wrong RFC? RFC1738 has > this section: > > 3.3. HTTP > >

Something after RequestProcessor adding extra / to URL? (was: URL validation)

In another thread, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The way I read http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2396.html > section 3.3 > I don't believe the path segment can legally end with a '/'. > Read the RFC and see what you think. > So I don't believe http://www.google.com:80/?action=xyz > strictly speaking is val

Re: URL validation

If we're talking URLs aren't we looking at the wrong RFC? RFC1738 has this section: 3.3. HTTP The HTTP URL scheme is used to designate Internet resources accessible using HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol). The HTTP protocol is specified elsewhere. This specification only describes the

Re: URL validation

IL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -Original Message- From: Adam Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: URL validation On 03/15/2004 10:16 AM Adam Hardy wrote: On 03/13/2004 07:46 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Adam Hardy I provide URL validation on a page which

Re: URL validation

lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Adam Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: URL validation > > > > On 03/15/2004 10:16 AM Adam Hardy wrote: > > > On 03/13/2004 07:46 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot

Re: URL validation

--- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: Adam Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2004 03:41 PM > > To: 'Struts Developers List' > > Subject: Re: URL v

Re: URL validation

> The way I read http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2396.html > section 3.3 > > I don't believe the path segment can legally end with a '/'. > Read the RFC and see what you think. > > So I don't believe http://www.google.com:80/?action=xyz > strictly speaking is valid, should we optionally allow for it >

Re: URL validation

> -Original Message- > From: Adam Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2004 03:41 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: Re: URL validation > > On 03/15/2004 10:16 AM Adam Hardy wrote: > > On 03/13/2004 07:46 AM [EMAIL PR

Re: URL validation

On 03/15/2004 10:16 AM Adam Hardy wrote: On 03/13/2004 07:46 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Adam Hardy I provide URL validation on a page which saves links for users. I put together the latest build of commons-validator (1.1.2) and struts (1.2) to see what the URL validation is like. The