Roland Weber wrote:
That's why I rated this as esoteric. You can implement any kind of
protocol via JNI. The protocols I can think of are either not meant
for HTTP, or can be mapped to the Socket API. The best I can come
up with here are pipes, but why should anybody want to use HTTP
via pipes?
The mail about a native implementation of SSL sockets a few days ago
made me think of this. On second thoughts, they were still providing
java.net.Socket, they just couldn't create the SSL socket on top of
an existing Java socket.
Back in the old days, when working on my diploma thesis and before,
I was programming on an operating system for a message passing
parallel computer. We didn't have anything like TCP/IP there, but
an OS specific communication infrastructure. Of course there was no
Java either :-) But that's why I am sometimes thinking queer and
non-TCP, like in this case.
cheers,
Roland
Roland,
Thanks for explaining. But I think we should not start to implement
purely academic scenarios. It only leads to overengineered architecture
and adds complexity that is otherwise unecessary. In the end it scares
people and make the API harder to use. Unless nobody comes up and asks
if we can support HTTP over IPX or something, I wouldn't bother.
Odi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
