"Rob Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We are doing something similar.
>> What I really want is a no-arg constructor
>> so that I can setup a port and socket factory
>> in a derived class before the base class constructor
>> initialiases the web server.
>>
>
> Sounds cool - our needs are m
> WE had this problem as well, and we didn't even bother to subclass, we just
> changed the word protected to public and let it be.
Yep - thought about that myself, but wanted to run on a "vanilla" XML/RPC
version without custom mods. Using a subclass let me do this.
> But I do think there ough
WE had this problem as well, and we didn't even bother to subclass, we just
changed the word protected to public and let it be.
But I do think there ought to at least be a "get port" method in the
baseclass
-Original Message-
From: Rob Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May
> We are doing something similar.
> What I really want is a no-arg constructor
> so that I can setup a port and socket factory
> in a derived class before the base class constructor
> initialiases the web server.
>
Sounds cool - our needs are much more basic than this, but no harm in having
mo
We are doing something similar.
What I really want is a no-arg constructor
so that I can setup a port and socket factory
in a derived class before the base class constructor
initialiases the web server.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Rob Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 23 May 200
