Adding HTTP method constants #712

mikaelm12 · 2016-09-23T17:42:47Z

davidfowl · 2016-09-23T18:40:37Z

src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions/HttpMethods.cs

+        public const string Put = "PUT";
+        public const string Trace = "TRACE";
+
+        public static bool Equals(string firstMethod, string secondMethod)


Do we need this? Where are we going to use it?

Tratcher · 2016-09-23T18:42:11Z

https://github.com/aspnet/ResponseCaching/blob/5e12a103a4c204d4b3fb68d07e43ce2299b29cf9/src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.ResponseCaching/ResponseCachePolicyProvider.cs#L20

davidfowl · 2016-09-23T18:54:12Z

a more optimized approach would be to have methods for each of the verbs that does a reference equality before doing the case insensitive matching.

Since we're declaring static strings we may as well use them....

davidfowl · 2016-09-23T18:55:37Z

Should these be consts or static readonly?

muratg · 2016-09-23T21:17:51Z

Let's not do this in 1.1. We'll consider this later.

davidfowl · 2016-09-23T21:45:23Z

src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions/HttpMethods.cs

+
+        public static bool IsConnectMethod(string inputMethod)
+        {
+            return object.ReferenceEquals(Connect ,inputMethod) | StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.Equals(Connect, inputMethod);


Wrong or, we don't want bitwise or here. You need ||.

nit: Connect , -> Connect,

@davidfowl I think you mean ||.

I edited my comment 😄

When you said "you need | " I figured you meant an extra one

davidfowl · 2016-09-23T21:45:47Z

@muratg why?

muratg · 2016-09-23T22:20:23Z

@davidfowl unnecessary churn, no?

davidfowl · 2016-09-23T22:21:30Z

Seems minimal and we have similar things like header names. It would be even better if have Kestrel use these:

/cc @halter73 @CesarBS

davidfowl · 2016-09-23T22:22:25Z

src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions/HttpMethods.cs

+            return object.ReferenceEquals(Connect ,inputMethod) | StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.Equals(Connect, inputMethod);
+        }
+
+        public static bool IsDeleteMethod(string inputMethod)


Change inputMethod to method

cesarblum · 2016-09-23T22:25:28Z

Why do case-insensitive comparison when the RFC says method names are case-sensitive? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.1.1

Tratcher · 2016-09-23T22:27:14Z

@CesarBS because in practice they are case-insensitive.

davidfowl · 2016-09-23T22:31:25Z

test/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Owin.Tests/OwinFeatureCollectionTests.cs

@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
 using System.Collections.Generic;
 using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Features;
 using Xunit;
+using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http;


Sort usings

Tratcher · 2016-09-23T23:09:11Z

src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions/HttpMethods.cs

+        {
+            return object.ReferenceEquals(Trace, method) || StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.Equals(Trace, method);
+        }
+    }


we should still have the Equals(string, string) method

davidfowl · 2016-09-24T02:05:04Z

src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions/HttpMethods.cs

@@ -55,5 +55,10 @@ public static bool IsTraceMethod(string method)
        {
            return object.ReferenceEquals(Trace, method) || StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.Equals(Trace, method);
        }
+
+        public static bool Equals(string left, string right)


This method is pointless... We hard code a few methods there's no point having a case insensitive overload here. It adds nothing..

I'm gonna let you and @Tratcher settle this...

@Tratcher lets decide on this offline.

khellang · 2016-09-24T08:54:59Z

Where's HEAD?

mikaelm12 · 2016-09-24T16:05:35Z

Its there now 😄. Good catch

Tratcher · 2016-09-24T16:11:32Z

src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions/HttpMethods.cs

+            return object.ReferenceEquals(Get, method) || StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.Equals(Get, method);
+        }
+
+        public static bool IsHeadMethod(string method){


formatting?

Tratcher · 2016-09-24T16:12:22Z

src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions/HttpMethods.cs

+            return object.ReferenceEquals(Delete, method) || StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.Equals(Delete, method);
+        }
+
+        public static bool IsGetMethod(string method)


HttpMethod.IsGetMethod(string) seems redundant. What about just HttpMethod.IsGet(string)?

Tratcher · 2016-09-26T19:14:20Z

src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions/HttpMethods.cs

+
+namespace Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http
+{
+    public static class HttpMethods


Should this be singular?
HttpMethod.Get
HttpMethod.IsGet(string)
HttpMethod.Equals(string, string)

Agreed. This is similar to a non-flag enum.

halter73 · 2016-09-26T23:00:24Z

src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions/HttpMethods.cs

+            return object.ReferenceEquals(Trace, method) || StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase.Equals(Trace, method);
+        }
+
+        public static bool Equals(string left, string right)


Is this really necessary? If anything this could be private and called by the Is* methods.

There was a big discussion on this. We're taking it out

its decided, nuke it.

halter73 · 2016-09-26T23:01:57Z

src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions/HttpMethods.cs

+        public const string Patch = "PATCH";
+        public const string Post = "POST";
+        public const string Put = "PUT";
+        public const string Trace = "TRACE";


I'm for keeping these const. ReferenceEquals still works across assembly boundaries. Just don't mess up 😛 .

static readonly

Yeah, constants would be nicer (e.g they could be used for attribute values) 👍

mikaelm12 · 2016-09-27T05:53:40Z

⬆️ 📅

davidfowl

LGTM

kevinchalet · 2016-09-28T13:42:01Z

a more optimized approach would be to have methods for each of the verbs that does a reference equality before doing the case insensitive matching.

What's the point of doing that manually? It's already something StringComparer does internally so you'll end up making the reference equality check twice

davidfowl · 2016-09-28T14:24:39Z

What's the point of doing that manually? It's already something StringComparer does internally so you'll end up making the reference equality check twice

Good to know! https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/src/mscorlib/src/System/StringComparer.cs#L300

http://referencesource.microsoft.com/#mscorlib/system/stringcomparer.cs,285

We'll still do the work to use the same objects everywhere 😄

kevinchalet · 2016-09-28T14:58:18Z

We'll still do the work to use the same objects everywhere 😄

TBH, I'm not sure to understand why (and how) having a static field would be better than a good old constant. I'm definitely not a perf' expert, but I'd expect the CLR to be smart enough to intern these constants to avoid instantiating new strings every time you use them in your code.

khellang · 2016-09-28T15:23:40Z

I'm definitely not a perf' expert, but I'd expect the CLR to be smart enough to intern these constants to avoid instantiating new strings every time you use them in your code.

Because of interning, there's little to no difference between const and static readonly strings AFAIK.

Since the compiler will burn const values into all assemblies using them, it makes sense to use static readonly for values that might change at some point in the future, but I can't imagine any of the HTTP methods would change, ever. 😜

There's also a drawback to using static readonly; it can't be used in attributes 😢

davidfowl · 2016-09-28T16:44:09Z

TBH, I'm not sure to understand why (and how) having a static field would be better than a good old constant. I'm definitely not a perf' expert, but I'd expect the CLR to be smart enough to intern these constants to avoid instantiating new strings every time you use them in your code.

Strings are deduped within single assembly boundaries. There's no guarantee that strings are "reference equal" across assembly boundaries. Using the same static readonly field guarantees that.

halter73 · 2016-09-28T18:04:01Z

There's no guarantee that strings are "reference equal" across assembly boundaries.

@davidfowl Did you read @khellang's comment?

Because of interning, there's little to no difference between const and static readonly strings AFAIK.

I've tested this, and this is true. const string are reference equal to literals/statics/etc... across assembly boundaries. That's why I was pushing for const earlier. I can't see the compiler/runtime team ever changing this considering how breaking it would be to do so.

davidfowl · 2016-09-28T18:06:02Z

I've tested this, and this is true. const string are reference equal to literals/statics/etc... across assembly boundaries. That's why I was pushing for const earlier. I can't see the compiler/runtime team ever changing this considering how breaking it would be to do so.

I tested it as well and it does work. Still best practice is to avoid const leaking across assembly boundaries no matter how little difference it makes on current runtimes. Maybe it'll break when corert comes around 😉

mikaelm12 added 2 commits September 22, 2016 17:11

Added HTTP method constants

f9a9bde

Moved HttpMethods to HttpAbstractions and added an equals method

b79adf1

dnfclas added the cla-already-signed label Sep 23, 2016

davidfowl suggested changes Sep 23, 2016

View reviewed changes

muratg added this to the Backlog milestone Sep 23, 2016

Made equality check methods for each Http method

3426646

davidfowl reviewed Sep 23, 2016

View reviewed changes

Responding to PR comments

8a3a4e0

davidfowl approved these changes Sep 23, 2016

View reviewed changes

Tratcher reviewed Sep 23, 2016

View reviewed changes

Added the equals method back

0262337

davidfowl reviewed Sep 24, 2016

View reviewed changes

mikaelm12 added 2 commits September 24, 2016 09:03

Added support for the Head method

8346fa0

Spacing

4e93c97

Tratcher reviewed Sep 24, 2016

View reviewed changes

Reacting to pr comments

3759ad7

Tratcher reviewed Sep 26, 2016

View reviewed changes

halter73 reviewed Sep 26, 2016

View reviewed changes

mikaelm12 added 3 commits September 26, 2016 22:45

Reacting to PR comments

d5edcab

Removing file with old name

80f0f21

Tests now use new class name

c443c51

davidfowl approved these changes Sep 27, 2016

View reviewed changes

mikaelm12 merged commit 626332c into dev Sep 27, 2016

muratg mentioned this pull request Sep 27, 2016

Renamed HttpMethod class to HttpMethods to avoid conflicts #714

Merged

halter73 mentioned this pull request Sep 28, 2016

Refactored to use the fields from the HttpMethods class aspnet/KestrelHttpServer#1128

Merged

mikaelm12 deleted the mikaelm12/Http-method-constants branch October 9, 2016 00:26

halter73 mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2016

HeaderUtilities enhancements #738

Merged

khellang mentioned this pull request Mar 20, 2017

Consider making verbs in HttpMethods as const string rather than static readonly string #795

Closed

kevinchalet mentioned this pull request Jun 10, 2017

why HttpMethods are not constants? #868

Closed

khellang mentioned this pull request Oct 8, 2017

Fields in HttpMethods cannot be used in switch #953

Closed

Adding HTTP method constants #712

Adding HTTP method constants #712

Uh oh!

Conversation

mikaelm12 commented Sep 23, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Tratcher commented Sep 23, 2016

Uh oh!

davidfowl commented Sep 23, 2016

Uh oh!

davidfowl commented Sep 23, 2016

Uh oh!

muratg commented Sep 23, 2016

Uh oh!

davidfowl Sep 23, 2016 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

davidfowl commented Sep 23, 2016

Uh oh!

muratg commented Sep 23, 2016

Uh oh!

davidfowl commented Sep 23, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cesarblum commented Sep 23, 2016

Uh oh!

Tratcher commented Sep 23, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

khellang commented Sep 24, 2016

Uh oh!

mikaelm12 commented Sep 24, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mikaelm12 commented Sep 27, 2016

Uh oh!

davidfowl Sep 23, 2016 •

edited

Loading

kevinchalet commented Sep 28, 2016 •

edited

Loading