tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From kevin seguin <seg...@motive.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-connectors/jk/java/org/apache/ajp/tomcat33Ajp14Interceptor.java
Date Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:47:24 GMT
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, kevin seguin wrote:
> 
> > hey costin,  one of the things i've been planning on doing is changing
> > o.a.ajp.AjpRequest to make use of o.a.coyote.Request.  basically, wrap
> > Request in AjpRequest.  does this conflict with your plans?
> 
> Yes, a bit, as I'm going to wrap AjpRequest in a tomcat33 Request.
> 
> Object wrapping an object wrapping an object is not that clean.
> 
> Can we just use a single base request, say "BaseRequest", have it in
> util/ ( which is shared by everything ), and then just wrap it in your
> tomcat4 Request and in the tomcat33 Request ?
> 
> If we're going to do that, I would apreciate few method name changes,
> so I can use it as a base class for core.Request. If not - I can still
> wrap it.
> 

i saw your checkin comment regarding BaseRequest.  i have no problem
with moving AjpRequest to org.apache.util.http.BaseRequest.  let's not
make it final, though, so it can be extended.  you want to do that while
you're making other changes?

> The reason I prefer
>   foo()
> instead of
>   MessageBytes getFoo()
> 
> is that the second is associated with the get/set pattern ( when in fact
> it's you need to change the modifiable result ).
> 
> I'm ok with using it, but at least please name the private fields with
> other names ( like fooMB or _foo or something else ).
> 

that's all cool with me :)

Mime
View raw message