On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Brian Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > The only short term change I'm planning on making is moving the switch > logic > > completely into ContentFetcherFactory, so callers can simply call > > ContentFetcherFactory.fetch(HttpRequest), and that'll delegate > > appropriately. This eliminates the redundant code between preloading, > > proxied content, and makeRequest. > > Yeah, that sounds fine to me, that won't mess with the merge. > > >> Re: doc for additional classes: which ones are confusing? I took a > >> pass through the code and tried to fill out more detail where I > >> thought was useful, but apparently I was wrong about where it was > >> needed. > > > > > > MakeRequestClient is particularly confusing -- as near as I can tell > it's > > only used in test code, but there aren't any comments indicating what > it's > > for (I mistakenly thought it was being used by MakeRequestHandler). > > OK, wrote up some javadoc for that class, checking it in now. > > It's just used for testing, it replaced some frequently repeated code > in SigningFetcherTest and OAuthFetcherTest. Should we put it into a package like gadgets.testing to be explicit then? It can't go into common.testing of course, but gadgets.testing is probably a reasonable thing to create.
