Hi Stephen, I agree with the others, the static parser class is weird. Either put the > static methods on the url class, or make the parser an instance with > options. >
Yes, I was sure that many people would find the signature of the parser weird, and I can totally understand it. Since I don't have hard feelings about any of the approaches, I'll try to find out what way the proposal should be changed. For the record, let me repeat my explanation about the current design choice that I expressed in my reply to Niels: ... one of my major design goals was to make the UrlParser class to be > extendable and configurable (e.g. via an "engine" property similar to what > Random/Randomizer has). Of course, UrlParser > doesn't support any of this yet, but at least the possibility is there for > followup RFCs due to the class being final. > Since I knew it would be an overkill to require instantiating an UrlParser > instance for a task which is stateless (URL parsing), > finally I settled on using static methods for the purpose. Later, if the > need arises, the static methods could be converted to > non-static ones with minimal BC impact. Regards, Máté
