When Java 9 was released, our use of RFC3986 meant that modules with
jrt:/ URL's were supported out of the box, as it was compliant with the
same configuration files running on Java 8, even though we weren't
loading these files. Had we used URL without a jrt provider, it would
have caused runt
They are incompatible.
The existing URI implementation is backward compatible, but its use should be
discouraged in new applications, so use diminishes over time. It's unique to
Java.
RFC3986 is good for unique identity and high performance, best for computer
processed data, we use it for i
On 10/11/2024 12:04, Peter Firmstone wrote:
:
Java doesn't implement RFC2396 strictly, as it has an expanded
character set that doesn't require escaping and can result in more
than one normalized form. My understanding is its these types of
corner cases regarding character escaping are what
We've been using an RFC3986 URI implementation for over a decade, there
were issues we had to work around regarding formatting, so we provided
static methods to address them. Significant performance benefits can be
derived from strict normalization relating to identity.
Java doesn't implement
