Re: FYI: Patch: java.net.URLStreamHandler

[Michael Koch <konqueror at gmx dot de>]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:13:07PM +1300, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2003, at 11:54 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 
> >BTW. The above example should also make the comment (that your new 
> >patch
> >now also removes) more clear. Another solution would be to not print 
> >the
> >port number when the host field is null, but we choose not to do this
> >since we think that is not according to spec (even though some
> >implementations seem to do it that way).
> 
> If we print the port number without a host name, then (I suspect) it 
> would not be a valid URL. The best solution IMO would be to change it 
> to something like:
> 
> if (hostName.length() == 0)
>   {
>     .. print hostname ...
>     if (port >= 0)
>       {
>          ... print port
>       }
>   }
> 
> This way we can get rid of the comment, and match the JDK behaviour.
> 
> (0 actually is a valid TCP port number, iirc, so I guess we should be 
> able to print it)

What about the attached patch ? Does everyone agree with it ?


Michael

Attachment: url.diff
Description: Text document