tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Remy Maucherat" <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-connectors/coyote/src/java/org/apache/coyote
Date Tue, 09 Apr 2002 08:14:54 GMT
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> >
> > I'd like those two to stay the way they are. They're not related to the
> > hooks or actions. I/O should be handled as a special case IMO; faster +
> > simpler. (could you remove the comments ?)
> Ok, but at least add a second parameter ( Request, Response, etc ) to
> allow stateless implementation.

Why ? The lifecycle is tied to the request/response lifecycle anyway. It
doesn't make any sense.

> Implementing input/output as a regular callback from coyote to the
> protocol impl. is IMO cleaner and is not much slower. I'm fine with
> them as special case if you want it this way.

I don't see the point, except if you thinks casts are cleaner (and having a
giant if/else in the main processing loop).

> But can we at least add the extra param ?

There's no point.
I would need the setReq/setResp methods on the filters anyway, as this is
when you're supposed to read the headers the filter need.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message