> -----Original Message----- > From: Lesiecki Nicholas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 June 2003 11:14 > To: Cactus Developers List > Subject: RE: My changes > > Good point. I'm not convinced either. Why not URL parameters? > > In any case I think the refactoring stands on its own.
+1 > I might even be > tempted to push it one step further and have setter methods on WebRequest > for all the Cactus parameters. Just for clarity... Yep, but maybe in a wrapped object? -Vincent > > Cheers, > Nick > --- Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Nicholas Lesiecki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 22 June 2003 05:40 > > > To: Cactus Developers List > > > Subject: My changes > > > > > > I never managed to get Tomcat working, so my committed changes haven't > > > been > > > tested on it. :( > > > > > > Overview: > > > > > > I added the concept of a uniqueId to the WebRequest according to > > Chris' > > > suggestion and refactored slightly to support the future addition of > > > custom > > > headers instead of request parameters. > > > > Hum... I'm not convinced yet we should use headers instead of > > parameters. I'd like to know what are the advantages first? AFAIK, I can > > see one disadvantage is that it will not be possible any more to test a > > Cactus server side install by typing a URL in your favorite browser. > > > > [snip] > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
