Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 7556 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jul 2001 19:27:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 7392 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2001 19:27:51 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:27:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Donald Ball X-X-Sender: To: Subject: augmenting the Request object Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N hey guys. i've got a patch that adds a new method to the Request object - getCookieMap. does what it say, returns the Cookies in a Map. i find it to be helpful and i'd like to commit it, but i wanted to check and see what the party line was on augmenting the Request object. as long as the augmented methods are implemented without resorting to any cocoon-specific api's or objects, does anyone have a problem with adding new methods to the Request object? if not, should the methods be named specially to avoid possible conflicts with future servlet api's? (e.g. getXCookieMap() or something). - donald --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org