Re: RFR JDK8015799

Chris, Looks good for me. Thank you for doing it. -Dmitry On 2013-06-28 13:36, Chris Hegarty wrote: > The latest webrev is > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8015799/webrev.03/ > > We end up with: > > private String filterHeaderField(String name, String value) { > if (value ==

Re: RFR JDK8015799

John I will sponsor this changes for you. -Chris. P.S. I couldn't resist doing some minor cleanup in the test, hope that is ok. On 06/28/2013 10:36 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: The latest webrev is http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8015799/webrev.03/ We end up with: private String filt

Re: RFR JDK8015799

The latest webrev is http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8015799/webrev.03/ We end up with: private String filterHeaderField(String name, String value) { if (value == null) return null; if (SET_COOKIE.equalsIgnoreCase(name) || SET_COOKIE2.equalsIgnore

Re: RFR JDK8015799

Chris, 1. I'm not sure it's a correct to return null rather then empty value, but you understand better what is happening, so I'm leaving it up to you. 2. It might be better to move 2805 if (value == null) 2806 return null; under if(SET_COOKIE ...), i.e. to ll. 281

Re: RFR JDK8015799

Looks fine to me John. -Chris. On 27/06/2013 17:09, John Zavgren wrote: All: I just posted a webrev image of the latest changes: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8015799/webrev.03/ Thanks! John On 06/26/2013 04:52 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote: Alright, thanks for the clarification - the sour

Re: RFR JDK8015799

All: I just posted a webrev image of the latest changes: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8015799/webrev.03/ Thanks! John On 06/26/2013 04:52 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote: Alright, thanks for the clarification - the source code changes are good as they are then. - Kurchi On 6/26/2013 1:49 PM

Re: RFR JDK8015799

Alright, thanks for the clarification - the source code changes are good as they are then. - Kurchi On 6/26/2013 1:49 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote: To link this email thread, both in the archives, and for others. The call for review on this bug started with: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/

Re: RFR JDK8015799

To link this email thread, both in the archives, and for others. The call for review on this bug started with: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-dev/2013-June/006607.html On 06/26/2013 08:22 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote: On 6/26/2013 12:17 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote: Hi John, Why not chan

Re: RFR JDK8015799

On 6/26/2013 12:17 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote: Hi John, Why not change lines 2810-2811 to: if (value == null || value.length() == 0) return value; I meant return null. For other cookie-headers too, is there any reason for us not returning null if the length of value is 0? Also, lot

Re: RFR JDK8015799

Hi John, Why not change lines 2810-2811 to: if (value == null || value.length() == 0) return value; Also, lots of formatting issue in the test, especially in TestCookieHandler, try-catch block indentation is off in line 54. Its also best to stop the server in a finally clause at

RFR JDK8015799

Please consider the following changes to the Java cookie code. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8015799/webrev.02/ The problem I fixed occurs when a server returns an array of cookies that contains a null cookie. Thanks John -

Re: RFR JDK8015799

On 06/20/2013 01:57 PM, John Zavgren wrote: Chris: Your idea of moving the empty string check so that it's header specific is prudent... that's less likely to have unforeseen consequences. I'll make the change ASAP. and maybe a test? -Chris. John On 06/20/2013 05:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:

Re: RFR JDK8015799

Chris: Your idea of moving the empty string check so that it's header specific is prudent... that's less likely to have unforeseen consequences. I'll make the change ASAP. John On 06/20/2013 05:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: Thanks John, I just did a quick test with the testcase attached to the

Re: RFR JDK8015799

Thanks John, I just did a quick test with the testcase attached to the bug report ( below), and the server is indeed replying with a Set-Cookie header with no value ( treated as empty string ) Since all header retrieval passes through filterHeaderField, in one way or another, I'm a little c

RFR JDK8015799

Greetings: Please review the following changes for a bug that's caused by empty cookie header strings. The proposed change detects this condition and returns "early". http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8015799/webrev.01/ -- Joh