Re: JSON headers

On 2016-07-10 14:03, Yanick Rochon wrote:
> On 10 July 2016 at 06:10, Poul-Henning Kamp <
> <>> wrote:
>     --------
>     In message <
>     <>>, Julian
>     Reschke writes
>     :
>     >But right now the spec *is* written to use the list construct, and I
>     >believe that's a good thing, as it's IMHO better to consider multiple
>     >instances as legal, and require the definition of the header field to
>     >deal with it.
>     I think it is a bad thing.
>     It prevents streaming processing of headers, since you never know
>     when you have the full picture for a particular header, until you've
>     received them all and seen that there are no more instances.
>     It means also means that either you have to rewrite the headers, or
>     all your code needs to do the brute-force collection scan and handle
>     an array of headers for further processing.  Both of which is wasteful
>     in terms of CPU and memory.
>     I see no advantages that come even close to compensating for those
>     disadvantages, but if I have overlooked something, please enlighten
>     me...
> I agree. Normally, multiple instances are legal in JSON and the latest
> will simply override the previous one, but in the case of headers, it is
> not good indeed and may produce problem when a repeating header comes
> after a few preliminary configurations have been set and will force
> retrieving the entire header object instead of the actual implementation
> (i.e. it would be a regression, not an improvement). Since streaming
> headers (feasable in JSON) is preferrable, duplicated keys in the JSON
> header should either be ignored or rejected with an error. It is the
> responsibility of the sender to properly format it's header before
> sending, not the server to untangle a messy one. In my opinion,
> repeating headers should be put in an array, period.

It seems you are confusing several issues here: multiple header field 
instances in the HTTP message, and duplicate member names in a JSON 
object. These are completely orthogonal issues.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Sunday, 10 July 2016 12:31:49 UTC