On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, kevin seguin wrote:
> hey costin, one of the things i've been planning on doing is changing
> o.a.ajp.AjpRequest to make use of o.a.coyote.Request. basically, wrap
> Request in AjpRequest. does this conflict with your plans?
Yes, a bit, as I'm going to wrap AjpRequest in a tomcat33 Request.
Object wrapping an object wrapping an object is not that clean.
Can we just use a single base request, say "BaseRequest", have it in
util/ ( which is shared by everything ), and then just wrap it in your
tomcat4 Request and in the tomcat33 Request ?
If we're going to do that, I would apreciate few method name changes,
so I can use it as a base class for core.Request. If not - I can still
wrap it.
The reason I prefer
foo()
instead of
MessageBytes getFoo()
is that the second is associated with the get/set pattern ( when in fact
it's you need to change the modifiable result ).
I'm ok with using it, but at least please name the private fields with
other names ( like fooMB or _foo or something else ).
Costin
