From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28634 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2006 16:11:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 28511 invoked by uid 48); 1 Mar 2006 16:11:43 -0000 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060301161143.28510.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libgcj/26487] Weird handling of HTTP Headers In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "ifoox at redhat dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00113.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #9 from ifoox at redhat dot com 2006-03-01 16:11 ------- Hi David, I tried to get classpath and try out applying the patch to test it out, but I had some problems with it. I'll try again in a bit but I have some general comments in the meanwhile. It seems more appropriate to keep the headers in a Map than a List, especially since getHeaderFields() has to return a map, and most opeartions are just a simple getHeaderField(sometype). It seems that a LinkedHashMap (which Headers extends) should be able to handle same-name headers, because it will just chain them together. In theory :) If this doesn't work out, it might be possible to store it in a Map in a structure like: String -> [String, String, ...] where [] is a List. So we would always have a String to List mapping and the List may contain 1 or more values for that header. Does that make any sense? :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26487