- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 21:25:15 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Yanick Rochon <yanick.rochon@gmail.com>, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:11:09PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2016-07-11 21:01, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 08:05:32PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > On 2016-07-11 19:44, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > > -------- > > > > In message <aa9cee9c-d8e3-17ba-9fcd-e327575cd5a8@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes > > > > : > > > > > > > > > b) relying on the uniqueness is a problem anyway (due to how JSON works). > > > > > > > > Sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying there... > > > > > > You can't rely on how a JSON parser reports or that it rejects duplicate > > > fields. > > > > Guys, I still don't understand why it would not work if everything is > > considered to be a list. A list can be ordered, right ? > > Inside a JSON *object*, the wire format allows multiple instances of the > same key (member name), and the recipient behavior for these cases is > undefined. OK thanks for explaining. But then what situation could lead to this confusing object to be emitted ? I thought that it was only related to posting multiple headers in which case I don't see the issue if we consider that all these headers are lists, and are then concatenated by the recipient. Thanks, Willy
Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 19:25:47 UTC