Ortwin Gl�ck wrote: > Mark R. Diggory wrote: > >> 1.) Would there be a means to assign my own properties object to the >> HttpClient, HttpConnection and HttpMethod objects? So I could control >> the settings on a "client by client", "connection by connection", or >> "method by method" basis? > > > Yes I think this makes sense. Do we really need one at the connection > level as well? To be discussed.
Maybe not a configuration file, just maybe the ability to hand it a properties object. Its just that I tend to instantiate HttpConnection object directly using its constructor, then make Methods and execute them in it. I don't really use the HttpClient to make my HttpConnections at this time. (Although I probibly should consider doing it. I don't think the HttpClient class existed when I started developing using the commons httpclient library.) > > [I assume you mean connection as "per server" and not physical sockets. yes. > Remember: A method may (re-)open a physical connection. With Http 1.1 > several methods can reuse the same physical connection. ] > >> 2.) Is there a "priority" the architecture levels? ie: >> >> key properties >> client --> connection --> method = actually used >> >> p1 x --------------------------> y ------------> y >> >> p2 a ---------> b -----------------------------> b >> p3 n ------------> m -------------> m >> p4 z -------------------------------------------> z >> > > Yes. This is exactly the priority system I meant by "patching" with > local preferences. > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
