On Sun, 2006-09-17 at 03:08 +0200, Roland Weber wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
>
> > Actually I think HttpClientConnection and HttpServerConnection are not
> > very good names for those interfaces. I would prefer those interfaces to
> > be renamed to HttpOutgoingConnection and HttpIncomingConnection.
>
> I've checked RFC 2616. In section 1.3, these terms are defined:
>
> client
> A program that establishes connections for the purpose of sending
> requests.
>
> server
> An application program that accepts connections in order to
> service requests by sending back responses. [...]
>
> Section 1.4 also starts by introducing the terms client and server in
> the first paragraph. I think the sendXXX and receiveXXX methods are
> the most characteristic ones in the connection interfaces. The client
> side has methods to send requests and receive responses, while the
> server side has methods to receive requests and send responses. So
> I doubt you'll find more appropriate names, except maybe for inserting
> "side": HttpClientSideConnection, HttpServerSideConnection.
>
So be it. Let's stick to these names. At the end of the day they do not
matter much. There's a Russian proverbial saying: "Call me a pot just do
not put me in an oven"
> > If do
> > not object to such a change, would you mind if I spit the interface into
> > HttpOutgoingConnection (sans #open()) and HttpClientConnection for the
> > time being, so I could go ahead with my work on NIO extensions?
>
> I am warming up to the idea of moving the functionality for opening to
> an extra interface. A lot of our code deals with reading and writing only,
> and expects a connection that is already open. An extra interface would
> help to distinguish those parts of the code. I expect such a split to come
> back and haunt us when we deal with connection management, but if it helps
> to overcome the current roadblock, so be it.
As long as it happens before the API freeze I do not see that as much of
an issue. That's what API development is all about.
> I'm still looking for a good name for the extended interface. Most ideas
> result in uncomfortably long names. I hate those, as my editor is set to
> 80 columns, and out indentation style already wastes plenty of horizontal
> space. My current favorite is HttpClientConnectionBox... you have to open
> the box in order to use the connection :-)
>
I _really_ would love to resolve this problem by simply moving the
extended connection interface and its default impl to the HttpClient
module
interface o.a.httpclient.HttpClientConnection
extends o.a.http.HttpClientConnection {
void open(...);
}
However, I understand you may want to use this interface in HttpAsync
Oleg
> cheers,
> Roland
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
