On 8/29/07, Paul Sandoz <Paul.Sandoz_at_sun.com> wrote:
>
> Dhanji R. Prasanna wrote:
> > As part of the UriBuilder implementation we will need to write
> > context-specific (path, query etc) character validation, and encode
> > methods. This is because there is insufficient public accessible
> > functionality in java.net.* and URI. How about we expose validation,
> > encode and decode as general methods?
> >
> >
> > Im happy with exposing encode and decode, but not sure about
> > validation--what specifically are you referring to validation of?
> >
> > If it is whole-URL validation I would be against it as it seems like
> > duplication of JSR-303 specification. Is there a reason a user (or us)
> > can't use the jsr303 (a JSE API) artifacts directly? Apart from the fact
> > that the horsemen may come before we release the spec =)
> >
>
> It would not be validation of the URI ABNF it would only be validation
> of characters of a URI component (scheme, user info, host, path, query
> or fragment).
Oh yes of course, that sounds reasonable to me. I thought you meant exposing
a validate() utility method to the client API that takes a String or some
such.
Dhanji.