[9] Review request : JDK-6933879: URISyntaxException when non-alphanumeric characters are present in scope_id

[Chris Hegarty]

> On 21.01.2015 16:06, Konstantin Shefov wrote:
>> Hi, Chris
>>
>> I have done a pre-integration testing for this fix on Linux, Windows,
>> Mac and Solaris x64 and sparc. I have run all regression tests for
>> core libraries, and no new failures appeared.
>>
>> Can I push this change now or should I wait for an approve by one more
>> person?

You have a Reviewer, and I see no objections. So you are good to push.

-Chris.

>> Thanks
>> -Konstantin
>>
>> On 16.01.2015 17:02, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>> On 16/01/15 12:50, Konstantin Shefov wrote:
>>>> Hi Chris, Alan, thank you for reviewing.
>>>>
>>>> I have made a new webrev
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kshefov/6933879/webrev.01
>>>> I have removed ":" and added a test case.
>>>
>>> This looks ok to me.
>>>
>>> -Chris.
>>>
>>>> -Konstantin
>>>>
>>>> 16.01.2015 14:42, Chris Hegarty пишет:
>>>>> On 16/01/15 11:29, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/01/2015 10:49, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see any reason to update the spec here, given that the
>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>> allowable character is not clearly defined in the relevant RFC's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we need to create a bug to look into this more. Inet6Address
>>>>>> allows the scope of be any String but URI puts restrictions on
>>>>>> what is
>>>>>> legal. The proposed change updates the list of allowed characters
>>>>>> but I
>>>>>> assume it will need to re-visited again as systems with more exotic
>>>>>> interface names are encountered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes that is possible, but to date this is the first time I've seen
>>>>> this come up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the lack of clear specification in the relevant RFC's (relating
>>>>> to scope ids ), I don't think we should be making too many
>>>>> specification changes in this area. But I agree with your comment, URI
>>>>> has a restriction that it not clearly specified in the Java spec.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Chris.
>>>>
>>
>