On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 3:11 PM Michael Osipov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 2020-01-18 um 19:05 schrieb Gary Gregory: > > I think the idea behind the HttpRequests enum is that it defines a > specific > > set of supported values. > > > > If we want to allow users to extend this set of values, then the enum > could > > implement an interface and we would code to the interface as opposed to > the > > enum internally. > > > > I suppose this all depends on how we want to represent 'we support RFC N > > and that RFC defines HTTP verbs A, B, and C'... > > I would not make it too complex and academic. A public final class makes > pretty clear that we are in control of this class and provide it as > courtesy. Anything else more sophisticated can implemented by the user > or donated. > > It really looks like an enum abuse for fluent builders. > > Gary, are you OK making them "public final classes"? > Sure, go ahead. Gary > M > > > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:48 AM Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 2020-01-18 at 16:17 +0100, Michael Osipov wrote: > >>> Am 2020-01-18 um 11:02 schrieb Oleg Kalnichevski: > >>>> On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 22:39 +0100, Michael Osipov wrote: > >>>>> Am 2020-01-15 um 18:24 schrieb Oleg Kalnichevski: > >>>>>> On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 17:36 +0100, Michael Osipov wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Mon, 2020-01-13 at 20:20 +0100, Michael Osipov wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Am 2020-01-13 um 15:00 schrieb Oleg Kalnichevski: > >>>>>>>>>> Michael, Gary > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> How long do you intend to block HttpClient 5.0-beta7 > >>>>>>>>>> release? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Are you done with all this renaming and enum stuff? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> One remaining PR and I am done. Will merge tonight. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Michael > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Is there anything left blocking the release? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No! I have merged immediately after my email. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Go ahead. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> OK. And what about HttpRequests, SimpleHttpRequests and > >>>>>> ClassicHttpRequests? > >>>>> > >>>>> I will have a look at them tomorrow. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi Michael > >>>> > >>>> Any update? > >>> > >>> Wen't through the enums. First of all, I think HttpRequests should > >>> be > >>> BasicHttpRequests to be consistent with the rest. > >>> > >>> As it looks like to me these are basic builders/factories. Enum has > >>> been > >>> used (to forbid inheritance?). In my opinion this is not what enum > >>> is > >>> for. I would expect them to be like: > >>> > >>> public final class BasicHttpRequests { > >>> > >>> public BasicHttpRequests delete(String) ... > >>> public BasicHttpRequests delete(URI) ... > >>> public BasicHttpRequests delete(HttpHost, String) ... > >>> // and so on > >>> > >>> } > >>> > >>> A bit similar to the HTTP method operations in > >>> org.springframework.web.client.RestTemplate, but w/o the execution. > >>> > >>> If that sounds reasonable, I will provide a PR today for all three of > >>> them. > >>> > >> > >> Michael > >> > >> I personally do not have an opinion strong enough and will just stay > >> away. > >> > >> If my memory still serves me the first of such classes was contributed > >> by Gary and I modeled similar classes based on the first one. > >> > >> Oleg > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > > > >
