I agree with everybody else that the decorator pattern is an elegant solution. About system properties, I agree with Trustin: I don't think we should support that.
Maarten On 10/2/07, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/2/07, Niklas Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, I think this is the way to go about implementing this kinds of > > things. This is similar to what was suggested the last time the proxy > > issue came up on the mailing list > > (http://www.nabble.com/Proxy-filter-tf3880454.html). > > How did you find that thread? :) > > > Now, one thing we should consider is whether we want to support > > specifying proxyHost, proxyPort via system properties, just like Socket > > does. In that case I don't think it will be as simple as wrapping like > > suggested above. Maybe we could support this by having some kind of > > factory which looks at the system properties? > > I agree with you that things will get complicated with system > properties. The questions is, do we really need to support system > properties? If a user uses a factory like Spring, he or she could > configure proxied connection very easily. > > Trustin > -- > what we call human nature is actually human habit > -- > http://gleamynode.net/ > -- > PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6 >
