Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hc.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "HttpComponents Project" <dev@hc.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of daddywri@gmail.com designates
 209.85.213.52 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALUFAGBCaT+csb8PrNw3O-9Ym_bqahoXFuH-GuqrBD7O9ZUiZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALUFAGAwhm=S_SPpg-K+mtQUw2tthkzfbcdJ46UYAH4mwRZNeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1400678661.5757.3.camel@ubuntu>
	<CALUFAGAOa87+8=VpxfzLaXUnALkgwa9urfrAeWvAVrdw+n2Btw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1400682231.7338.2.camel@ubuntu>
	<CALUFAGBjG8bg4zt5vgBP-6exMhJVqjKwNy7f=Fxv2QvjNq5nNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALUFAGB2RaOWY3W+Mh9L6JKOZsMRPdxFGm_h+0RarXoAoFb-6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1400761166.20033.8.camel@ubuntu>
	<CALUFAGAXqrShgNHf+rejE3GPC5SL=RxpLoQyaheiHEeqbLaYzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALUFAGBCaT+csb8PrNw3O-9Ym_bqahoXFuH-GuqrBD7O9ZUiZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 08:33:30 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CALUFAGDLrX6v48EZ8XZaBwzJmzxp_m=Zn0NaWiZzfHQ6Z3GZzA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Expect-continue doesn't seem operative using 4.3.x builder
 structures
From: Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>
To: HttpComponents Project <dev@hc.apache.org>
Cc: dev <dev@manifoldcf.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011615fc0a656404f9fc52e2

--089e011615fc0a656404f9fc52e2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I've created HTTPCLIENT-1510 to summarize the problem and propose the
outlines of a solution.
Karl


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let me clarify.  Right now, you've a wrapper hierarchy that is totally
> distinct from the original request hierarchy.  You *could* allow everything
> wrapped with HttpRequestWrapper to allow expect/continue, in which case you
> lose the ability to have specificity for different kinds of wrapped
> requests.  Or (much better) you could have all HttpRequest objects have a
> "supportExpectContinue" method, which in the wrapper would wind up calling
> the embedded request's supportExpectContinue method.  Seems much better, no?
>
> Karl
>
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>>>>
>> Are you sure about that? What would this method do for GET requests
>> given than those requests are not even supposed to enclose an entity?
>> <<<<<<
>>
>> It would return false for any request implementation that did not support
>> expect-continue, of course.
>>  The advantage of this kind of structure is that it does not rely on the
>> implicit instanceof operator, but rather an explicit method implementation,
>> so it is clearer (and more flexible).
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 07:55 -0400, Karl Wright wrote:
>>> > FWIW, a better way for this kind of thing to be done would be for the
>>> > request object to have a method, e.g. "supportsExpectContinue()", that
>>> you
>>> > would call, instead of relying on class names and hierarchy ...
>>> >
>>>
>>> Are you sure about that? What would this method do for GET requests
>>> given than those requests are not even supposed to enclose an entity?
>>>
>>> Oleg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>

--089e011615fc0a656404f9fc52e2--