mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: [AsyncWeb] Client redesign
Date Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:01:43 GMT

On Feb 9, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Mike Heath wrote:

> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> That's a good thought.  The reason that the URL was originally put  
>>> in the
>>> HttpClient constructor (as well as the request) was to allow the
>>> management
>>> of connections to be separated from the URL request.   
>>> Realistically, a
>>> URL
>>> could be dropped in favor of discrete scheme/hostname/port  
>>> parameters on
>>> an connection object.  Though it's not always desirable to do  
>>> this, so
>>> specifying and maintaining a physical connection should be an  
>>> optional
>>> kind
>>> of thing to do.
>>
>> Not sure why one needs to specify the URL so far in advance.
>
> I like the idea of specifying a base URI for the HttpClient.  So you  
> use
> a base URI of something like "http://somedomain.foo" and subsequent
> requests could then do something like get("/bar") which would do a GET
> on "http://somedomain.foo/bar".
>
> This would require further abstraction than what AHC has to offer  
> currently.

I think that this bit can be, and is, handled with URLs.  I don't see  
the advantage of adding complexity to the metaphor and, hence, the API.


Regards,
Alan


Mime
View raw message