Some of you (Daniel?) may remember a discussion I started a couple of months back about changing the client classes to use the Commons HttpClient. Well, I finally began work on it as I am working on a project for which it would be useful. Of course as I get into it, I want to make sure I have the commiters' guidance in a couple of matters.
For those who don't remember the thread, I wanted to modify the library to use the Commons HttpClient library so that we would have a maintained, feature rich HTTP client that the library could use for the client portion of its HTTP communications. See my post here for more info: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=rpc-dev&m=101719931632520&w=2 There are some decisions to be made as to how much to expose to the library users. My original patch that modified the User-Agent header and the cookies was rejected as it wasn't a general solution to the HTTP header question. Well, I think using HttpClient qualifies but I am tempted to expose the functionality in the same way: a public setUserAgent() method and addCookie/removeCookie methods. This is similar to the way HTTP Basic Authentication is now done. Do you object to this? If so how should we expose the added functionality? Ryan Hoegg ISIS Networks
