manifoldcf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Expect-continue doesn't seem operative using 4.3.x builder structures
Date Thu, 22 May 2014 12:43:45 GMT
Hi Oleg,

We *are* using POST - multipart post.  And this apparently extends
HttpRequestWrapper.  Which is why expect/continue is not working for us.

If you have a better solution, please let me know what it is.

Karl



On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 08:27 -0400, Karl Wright 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?
> >
>
> Why is exactly instanceof bad or less flexible? It enables certain
> requests to provide optional behavior such as ability to enclose a
> request entity, which by the current official HTTP spec applies to POST
> and PUT _only_.
>
> So, what is better, round or green?
>
> Oleg
>
> > 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message