[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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.
>
i saw your checkin comment regarding BaseRequest. i have no problem
with moving AjpRequest to org.apache.util.http.BaseRequest. let's not
make it final, though, so it can be extended. you want to do that while
you're making other changes?
> 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 ).
>
that's all cool with me :)
