Request for comments: Bug 6306820

[Michael McMahon]

Richard Kennard wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Given that I sort of disagree with both these comments, should I just 
> take it that this is what the CCC wants and make the changes anyway?
>
> My disagreements would be:
>
> 1. Overkill or not, surely defining an enum is more explicit, more 
> type-safe and a generally stricter way of doing things that defining 
> the contract in the JavaDoc and throwing an IllegalArgumentException 
> at runtime?
I think I agree since it does need to specified in the apply() method which
separator you are talking about. Though I think we should stick
with the uppercase convention.
> 2. I think the whole 'a URL parameter can have multiple values' issue 
> is unintuitive, and returning either a List<String> or a String[] is 
> going to be a surprise to people who just want a single String return 
> value (witness the confusing nature of getParameter and 
> getParameterValues in the Servlet API). Therefore, I'd rather follow 
> ServletRequest which has beaten down this path for many years.
>
What are you suggesting here?

Michael.