Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Stanimir Stamenkov <s7an10@netscape.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: [LONG] java.net.URI encoding weirdness
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 11:02:25 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <lka4uh$tl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <lk82m6$hhi$1@dont-email.me> <lk8n0o$ibf$1@dont-email.me> <lk8u3d$agp$1@dont-email.me> <lk9861$dk5$1@dont-email.me> <lka2s0$kma$1@dont-email.me> <tkgm3b-8p5.ln1@s.simpson148.btinternet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 08:02:25 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9f3b1682542d0f283a9d005dcd9bed05"; logging-data="949"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18cmCwNB6pHG2lMPdXE8ZRx"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26
In-Reply-To: <tkgm3b-8p5.ln1@s.simpson148.btinternet.com>
X-Face: "@)%Vlap6d%OVYDS}B4YUWE@yUy+^!w/+.q.,c5kjI#+uG?kYP&r/pTjNWgo:g[A,O=AL3/ j&4Le2cau$<e=FPq~GbeZ6DW1Grey[VHn8?ktzvoQtzlg;]&rh8g]CD+_BC7d[gW{Yx&_X*4Q$h&nJ l@t(|4R4:T='&]U#ui+z9OC$.~gJjU93kh:Ojc$Cz0n#I9!~!9ay?E<UlW&5,IFX1*KtA>MYEFst$y y"m]M7tq\S(>[a$x0x8%S
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KtVjn0wlv7wiEWUpJhAosIPUX/Y=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:28391

Tue, 06 May 2014 08:47:09 +0100, /Steven Simpson/:

> This rings a bell.  I was finding URI's multi-arg constructors
> useless. Since the query string must be submitted as a unit, it must
> already be using & and =, and any special characters in it that are
> to be taken literally must already be encoded, yet the constructor
> treats it as unencoded, and adds another level of encoding.  That
> also goes for your userInfo component with an @ in it to separate
> user and domain.
>
> I think the solution for me was just to use URLEncoder, concatenate
> the strings, then pass to URI.create().

Yeah, that was what I was trying to avoid – the manual URI 
construction/concatenation, and then the overhead of parsing (for 
every construction).  This appears the most natural usage of the URI 
constructors to me – having the different components/properties 
already parsed.

-- 
Stanimir