On Sat, 1 Nov 2025 10:24:45 GMT, Peyang <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes please. I'd prefer to have built-in validation. > > I implemented a check that validates whether the ranges are in ascendnig > order and non-overlapping, returning an error if they are not. > However, I have some concerns: this restriction might be too strict. > > Instead of outright rejecting requests with overlapping or unsorted ranges, > what if the server simply combines overlapping ranges and sorts them before > returning? > According to [RFC 7233 > §15.3.7.2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#section-15.3.7.2-4): >> When multiple ranges are requested, a server **MAY** coalesce any of the >> ranges that overlap, or that are separated by a gap that is smaller than the >> overhead of sending multiple parts, regardless of the order in which the >> corresponding range-spec appeared in the received >> [Range](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#field.range) header >> field. > > In other words, rather than strictly validating and rejecting, we could treat > this as an efficiency optimization on the server side. I think this approach > would be more practical. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.
That would be fine too. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28021#discussion_r2487001106
