Re: RFR 4906983: java.net.URL constructors throw MalformedURLException in undocumented way

Am 13.09.2015 um 16:25 schrieb Chris Hegarty: > >> On 13 Sep 2015, at 14:07, Mark Sheppard > > wrote: >> >> Hi >> I don't think the URL string http://server:-1/path can be >> considered a valid URL as the port value -1 is not legal port value. > > I agree, but ja

Re: RFR 4906983: java.net.URL constructors throw MalformedURLException in undocumented way

I was thinking as a change for all constructors, as there are URL, which may overload authority part's structural elements such that port might be a "remote object id", or some other form of token. OK, that's fine On 13/09/2015 15:25, Chris Hegarty wrote: Is this suggested wording for the “s

Re: RFR 4906983: java.net.URL constructors throw MalformedURLException in undocumented way

Sebastian, > On 10 Sep 2015, at 20:32, Sebastian Sickelmann > wrote: > > Hi, > > first thanks to Chris and David for their helpful input . I looked through > the existing > Testcases and found one that is already testing for negative-port numbers. > So i extended the @bug line with "4906983"

Re: RFR 4906983: java.net.URL constructors throw MalformedURLException in undocumented way

> On 13 Sep 2015, at 14:07, Mark Sheppard wrote: > > Hi > I don't think the URL string http://server:-1/path can be considered a > valid URL as the port value -1 is not legal port value. I agree, but java.net .URL is a legacy API. The only changes we can realistically mak

Re: RFR 4906983: java.net.URL constructors throw MalformedURLException in undocumented way

Hi I don't think the URL string http://server:-1/path can be considered a valid URL as the port value -1 is not legal port value. However, the URL class doesn't object and throw a MalformedURLException, which is something of an anomaly, caused by the spec allowing a port value of -1 for the