[cp-patches] RFC: Headers fixlet
WBaer at gmx.de
Tue Mar 7 17:27:25 UTC 2006
David Daney wrote:
> Wolfgang Baer wrote:
>>> If you have test cases that show that the current putAll() is broken,
>>> then the change should be made. But change just for change's sake I am
>>> not so sure.
>> No, I have no testcases for putAll() - only for put(). As you said its
>> used internally to override settings. The change won't affect the current
>> usage so far. The reason for reimplementation was more that people
>> (later if
>> they use that class) may assume that putAll() behaves as put() on a whole
>> Headers collection which is not true.
>> If we don't change the method we need to document clearly that its not
>> behaviour of put() on a Headers collection. Also I think we can at
>> least save
>> one of the iterations.
> The thing I worry about is headers like 'Content-Length'. In order for
> HTTP to function correctly we must supply the correct value. I think by
> allowing putAll() to append, we might have a situation where there could
> be multiple headers for some critical protocol headers that could break
You are right. Thats why the current patch does not change anything in putAll()
except the removal of a duplicated iteration.
More information about the Classpath-patches