Motivation:
AsciiString.contentEqualsIgnoreCase may return true for non-matching strings of equal length when offset is non zero.
Modifications:
- Correctly take offset into account
- Add unit test
Result:
Fixes#9475
Motivation
@xiaoheng1 reported incorrect behaviour of AsciiString.lastIndexOf in
#9099. Upon closer inspection it appears that it was never implemented
correctly and searches between the provided index and the end of the
string similar to indexOf(...), rather than between the provided index
and the beginning of the string as the javadoc states (and in line with
java.lang.String).
Modifications
Fix AsciiString.lastIndexOf implementation and corresponding unit tests
to behave the same as the equivalent String methods.
Result
Fixes#9099
Motivation:
No need to initialize charsets from the string. We can take already allocated charset from StandardCharsets class.
Modification:
Replace Charset.forName("US-ASCII") with StandardCharsets.US_ASCII.
Removed Charset[] values() method and internal static variable as it was used only in tests.
Result:
Reuse what the JDK provides
Motivation:
Incrementing two variables in sync is not necessary when only one will do.
Modifications:
- Remove `j` from `for` loop and replace with `i`.
- Add more unit testing scenarios to cover changed code.
Results:
Unnecessary variable removed.
Motivation:
We incorrectly calculated the length that was used for our for loop in AsciiString.indexOf(...). This lead to a possible ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
Modifications:
- Not include the start in the length calculation
- Add unit test.
Result:
Fixes https://github.com/netty/netty/issues/8112.
Motivation:
The bounds checking for AsciiString#indexOf and AsciiString#lastIndexOf is not correct and may lead to ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
Modifications:
- Correct the bounds checking for AsciiString#indexOf and AsciiString#lastIndexOf
Result
Fixes https://github.com/netty/netty/issues/7863
* NetUtil valid IP methods to accept CharSequence
Motivation:
NetUtil has methods to determine if a String is a valid IP address. These methods don't rely upon String specific methods and can use CharSequence instead.
Modifications:
- Use CharSequence instead of String for the IP validator methods.
- Avoid object allocation in AsciiString#indexOf(char,int) and reduce
byte code
Result:
No more copy operation required if a CharSequence exists.
Motivation:
AsciiString.hashCode(o) , if "o" is a subString, the hash code is not always same, when netty’s version is 4.1.1.Final and jdk’s version is 1.6.
Modifications:
Use a test to assert hash codes are equal between a new string and any sub string (a part of a char array),If their values are equal.
Result:
Create a test method to AsciiStringCharacterTest.
Motivation:
In AsciiString.trim, last should be `arrayOffset() + length() - 1`. See #4741.
Modifications:
Fix the last value.
Result:
AsciiString.trim works correctly.
Motivation:
Related to issue #4564.
AsciiString.contentEqualsIgnoreCase fails when comparing two AsciiStrings of the same length
Modifications:
Compare the values of the first AsciiString to the second AsciiString
Result:
AsciiString.contentEqualsIgnoreCase works as expected
Motivation:
HttpHeaders already has specific methods for such popular and simple headers like "Host", but if I need to convert POST raw body to string I need to parse complex ContentType header in my code.
Modifications:
Add getCharset and getCharsetAsString methods to parse charset from Content-Length header.
Result:
Easy to use utility method.
Motivation:
The AsciiString.hashCode() method can be optimized. This method is frequently used while to build the DefaultHeaders data structure.
Modification:
- Add a PlatformDependent hashCode algorithm which utilizes UNSAFE if available
Result:
AsciiString hashCode is faster.
Motivation:
The HTTP/2 RFC (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-8.1.2) indicates that header names consist of ASCII characters. We currently use ByteString to represent HTTP/2 header names. The HTTP/2 RFC (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-10.3) also eludes to header values inheriting the same validity characteristics as HTTP/1.x. Using AsciiString for the value type of HTTP/2 headers would allow for re-use of predefined HTTP/1.x values, and make comparisons more intuitive. The Headers<T> interface could also be expanded to allow for easier use of header types which do not have the same Key and Value type.
Motivation:
- Change Headers<T> to Headers<K, V>
- Change Http2Headers<ByteString> to Http2Headers<CharSequence, CharSequence>
- Remove ByteString. Having AsciiString extend ByteString complicates equality comparisons when the hash code algorithm is no longer shared.
Result:
Http2Header types are more representative of the HTTP/2 RFC, and relationship between HTTP/2 header name/values more directly relates to HTTP/1.x header names/values.
