Hi Oleg, We *are* using POST - multipart post. And this apparently extends HttpRequestWrapper. Which is why expect/continue is not working for us.
If you have a better solution, please let me know what it is. Karl On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 08:27 -0400, Karl Wright wrote: > > Let me clarify. Right now, you've a wrapper hierarchy that is totally > > distinct from the original request hierarchy. You *could* allow > everything > > wrapped with HttpRequestWrapper to allow expect/continue, in which case > you > > lose the ability to have specificity for different kinds of wrapped > > requests. Or (much better) you could have all HttpRequest objects have a > > "supportExpectContinue" method, which in the wrapper would wind up > calling > > the embedded request's supportExpectContinue method. Seems much better, > no? > > > > Why is exactly instanceof bad or less flexible? It enables certain > requests to provide optional behavior such as ability to enclose a > request entity, which by the current official HTTP spec applies to POST > and PUT _only_. > > So, what is better, round or green? > > Oleg > > > Karl > > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > Are you sure about that? What would this method do for GET requests > > > given than those requests are not even supposed to enclose an entity? > > > <<<<<< > > > > > > It would return false for any request implementation that did not > support > > > expect-continue, of course. > > > The advantage of this kind of structure is that it does not rely on the > > > implicit instanceof operator, but rather an explicit method > implementation, > > > so it is clearer (and more flexible). > > > > > > Karl > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 07:55 -0400, Karl Wright wrote: > > >> > FWIW, a better way for this kind of thing to be done would be for > the > > >> > request object to have a method, e.g. "supportsExpectContinue()", > that > > >> you > > >> > would call, instead of relying on class names and hierarchy ... > > >> > > > >> > > >> Are you sure about that? What would this method do for GET requests > > >> given than those requests are not even supposed to enclose an entity? > > >> > > >> Oleg > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> 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] > >
