--- Begin Message ---
Daniel Rall wrote:
>Okay. I'm really into using Jakarta Commons HttpClient, but worry
>about how use of it will affect applets (it's yet another JAR to
>download). Unfortunately I haven't had time to keep up on your work
>-- is there any way that we could have two clients, one which uses
>HttpClient and one which uses the existing code? I'm imagining
>something like the following:
>
> XML-RPC client interface
> _. ._
> /| |\
> / \
> / \
> Impl using HttpClient Impl using home grown code
>
>That way those who didn't want to have to distribute the HttpClient
>JAR for their clients could still use the clunky old code. Right now
>we have two (non-SSL) clients, but they don't seem to do much
>differently.
>
>
Feel free to take this on-list if you think appropriate.
I think the distinction you make above sounds a lot like turning
XmlRpcClient and XmlRpcClientLite into two implementations of an
interface. If that's the case, I think XmlRpcClient should become an
interface and we can rename XmlRpcClient to XmlRpcClientHeavyImpl or
something like that. I'd be happy to help but I may not be the best one
to determine what goes into the interface and what stays on the class...
for instance, does the setBasicAuthentication become an interface or
does it live only on the HeavyImpl?
Also, any talk about XmlRpcClientLite should probably include John
Wilson as he seems to be the committer behind the lightweight code.
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
--
Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- End Message ---
