Re: Q about RequestAdapterImpl

[co...@eng.sun.com]

> Am I correct in assuming that RequestAdapter and
> RequestAdapterImpl have been rolled up into Request
> and RequestImpl?  I have been on the "general" mail list
> for months now; I guess I should have been on this one,
> too, to catch the news on the rearrangement of classes
> and packages.

Yes, the reason was that we had 3 interfaces for request.
There are good reasons to have a Facade ( security ), but
Request and RequestAdapter did almost the same thing.

The reason to add RequestAdapter in the first place was that
Request was an abstract class ( instead of intreface) and 
it had many http-specific methods in it.

Right now I am removing old code from Request, I hope to
finish Request/Response in few days. Please send feedback 
on this - does it make your Connector too complex? 

( you can also extend RequestImpl and override methods )

Costin

Re: Q about RequestAdapterImpl

[Bob Jamison <rj...@lincom-asg.com>]

costin@eng.sun.com wrote:


>
> Right now I am removing old code from Request, I hope to
> finish Request/Response in few days. Please send feedback
> on this - does it make your Connector too complex?
>

Thanks for the info, and I will let you know.   At first glance, it
looks like it will actually be a lot simpler.



Bob