On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 3:52 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 21:13 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > In my proxy, I use: > > > > DefaultHttpServerIODispatch.create(serviceHandler, serverSslContext, > > serverConnectionConfig) > > > > In order to support HTTP DELETE with a message body (I know, I know), > > I've > > created a custom HttpRequestFactory implementation. > > > > So I want this to kick in so that by the time my > > custom > > org.apache.http.nio.protocol.HttpAsyncRequestProducer.generateRequest > > () > > called, the request is the BasicHttpEntityEnclosingRequest I created > > in my > > HttpRequestFactory. > > > > A HttpRequestFactory lives in a > > NHttpMessageParserFactory<HttpRequest>. > > > > Would it be acceptable to add support for HttpRequestFactory and/or > > NHttpMessageParserFactory to ConnectionConfig? > > > > Gary > > Why would you want to add an HTTP protocol level interface to a class > that represents transport parameters? Would there be any benefits of > mixing completely unrelated things? > >From a simple point of view -- even though there is nothing simple about my proxy -- I have a factory method with one parameter being a "config" object, so I am thinking "Hey, this looks like a nice place to hang this object which can be picked up when this whole tree of objects gets constructed." I will study the code some more... Gary > > Oleg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org > >
