On Mon, 3 Nov 2025 15:58:37 GMT, Daniel Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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. I updated the implementation to merge overlapping or unsorted ranges and sort them before returning, instead of rejecting. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28021#discussion_r2490654650
