On 22/10/12 16:07, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> On 22/10/12 13:43, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyozkin_at_talend.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I know that I'm the last one who still does not get it :-).
>>>
>>> Consider the following:
>>>
>>> uriBuilder.fromPath("http://localhost").segment("{a}").build("a/b",
>>> false);
>>>
>>> UriBuilder.segment() states that "/" have to be encoded.
>>
>> The javadoc of segment() applies to the value passed to the segment().
>> Not to a template that was added via segment(). IOW, if you passed
>> "a/b" into segment() directly, it would be encoded.
>
> So, to be absolutely clear.
>
> By default, irrespectively of whether a given template var was
> introduced as part of path() or segment() call, the "/" (inside of this
> var's content) is never supposed to be encoded.
>
> The only way to override it, when working with build(), is to use a new
> flag.
>
Ouch, it is the other way around,
"NOTE: By default all '/' characters in the stringified values will be
encoded in path templates, i.e. the result is identical to invoking
build(Object[], boolean) build(values, true)}. To override this behavior
use build(values, false) instead."
Why it is a default, I'm not sure, that definitely breaks one of my
tests - but whatever...
Just need a confirmation please that this rule applies irrespectively of
the "origin" (ex, a var came from path() or segment())
Sergey
>
>>
>>> So one possible output is:
>>>
>>> "http://localhost/a%2Fb"
>>>
>>> While build() requires this slash to be left as is.
>>
>>>
>>> So the result is then:
>>>
>>> "http://localhost/a/b"
>>>
>>> If the last output is the right one (has to be really), then I guess
>>>
>>> UriBuilder.segment() docs can be improved a bit to state that only
>>> "/" in the literal expressions have to be encoded by default,
>>> otherwise the encoding is affected by the new build flag, similarly
>>> the same clarification needs to be applied to UriBuilder path docs
>>
>> Can you please provide a javadoc version that would clarify the
>> segment() behavior in a way that is, in your opinion, clear&
>> understandable?
>>
> Sure, can do that once I'm 100% clear
>
> thanks, Sergey
>
>> Thanks,
>> Marek
>>
>>>
>>> Sergey
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Sergey Beryozkin
Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/
Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com