I am also thinking that the enum StandardMethods should be renamed to StandardMethod (singular); other enums we have are singular.
Gary On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:15 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:40 PM Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 2018-07-12 at 09:35 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:18 PM Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 10:01 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote: >> > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:55 AM Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.o >> > > > rg> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 08:40 -0600, Gary Gregory wrote: >> > > > > > Hi All, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > In my apps, I usually have this enum, handy for >> > > > > > parameterizing >> > > > > > things >> > > > > > like >> > > > > > tests. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > There is already one called StandardMethods. Would that be >> > > > > enough? >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Yes :-) but I can add factory methods to create request objects >> > > > as in >> > > > my >> > > > version (Using the version 5 interface instead of 4)? For >> > > > example: >> > > > >> > > >> > > This would make StandardMethods dependent on the classic I/O model, >> > > which is not ideal in my option. What is wrong with just having a >> > > factory class (which can be an enum if that suits you)? >> > > >> > >> > So basically the enum I started this thread with but called >> > ClassicHttpRequests >> > (or ClassicHttpRequestFactory) in HttpClient? >> > >> >> ClassicHttpRequests works for me. Can you make HttpRequests for generic >> requests as well? >> > > Will do. > > Gary > > >> >> Oleg >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org >> >>
