W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-jigsaw@w3.org > March to April 1997

Re: More digging.

From: Anselm Baird_Smith <abaird@www43.inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:31:45 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199704030931.LAA18719@www43.inria.fr>
To: Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafalov@socs.uts.EDU.AU>
Cc: "'www-jigsaw@w3.org'" <www-jigsaw@w3.org>
Alexandre Rafalovitch writes:
 > On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Anselm Baird_Smith wrote:
 > 
 > > Alexandre Rafalovitch writes:
 > > 
 > >  > Another problem with LookupState:
 > >  > 3) It unescapes the path but never escapes it back, when getRemainingPath
 > >  > is requested. That would create some subtle problems when somebody tries
 > >  > to write a proxy/redirector resources and uses getRemainingPath to add to
 > >  > existing url. I think the solution for this (and problem in previous mail)
 > >  > would be to keep original URI around (already does) and a pointer to
 > >  > where the last segment has finished and just return a substring of
 > >  > original URI. That would spare unescaping/escaping, etc.
 > > 
 > > Correct. This requires (?) the following (compatible) changes in API:
 > > 
 > > getRemainingPath(boolean escaped) {
 > >    ...
 > > }
 > > 
 > > getRemainingPath() {
 > >     return getRemainingPath(true);
 > > }
 > > 
 > 
 > What about consume flag. Did you get rid of it?

Oop, I missed:
peekNextComponent(boolean escaped);

That's for LookupState, now the problem for consuming is rather
located in the COntainerResource (which of peek/get Component it
calls). The issue (related to ContainerResource) is still open..

 > >  > Also, setValue and getValue are not
 > >  > complimentary, they are called by different classes with different
 > >  > purposes. That might be an entry for the FAQ.
 > > 
 > > Could you clarify that point ?
 > > 
 > Well, if I am correct, setValue is called by editor to convert value as
 > entered on html form into internal (File, URL, etc) representation.
 > getValue is called (by editor?) to set the value of attribute. The
 > opposite to getValue() which would initialize field to correct value is
 > either initialize() or constructor (don't remember which). Usually, getFoo
 > and setFoo are doing complimentary things. Here, they are acting more like
 > two ends of a pipe. I was just saying that this probably requires some
 > explanation in manual section for developer. (probably not FAQ, as it is
 > not a user, but programmer question) 

Got it thanks,
Anselm.
Received on Thursday, 3 April 1997 04:32:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 April 2012 12:13:26 GMT