On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 06:22:36PM -0600, Eric wrote: > I was using HTTPClient, but I then switched to the com.mortbay.HTTP > library (it comes with one of their products or something i believe). > I forget why I did so, but I think it had something to do with > limitations in dealing with filenames in HTTPClient. I advise you to > compare the two. > > eric. You can test the "tea" project's http package, too. It has interesting ideas in a couple of fields, too. (opensource.go.com, some apache style license). incze
- Why should you call JSP pages directly? Jens Rehp�hler
- Re: Why should you call JSP pages directly? Maya Muchnik
- Re: Why should you call JSP pages directly? Jens Rehp�hler
- Re: Why should you call JSP pages directl... Maya Muchnik
- Re: Why should you call JSP pages dir... John Raley
- Re: Why should you call JSP page... Maya Muchnik
- HTTPClient vs java.net.URLCo... Maya Muchnik
- Re: HTTPClient vs java.n... Eric
- Re: Why should you call ... Incze Lajos
- Re: Why should you call JSP ... Craig R. McClanahan
- Re: Why should you call ... Chris Bartley
- Re: Why should you call ... Craig R. McClanahan
- Re: Why should you call ... Luke Taylor
- Re: Why should you call ... Craig R. McClanahan
- Re: Why should you call ... Incze Lajos
- Re: Why should you call ... Jens Rehp�hler
- Re: Why should you call ... Craig R. McClanahan
- Re: Why should you call JSP pages directly? Martin Smith

