W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-jigsaw@w3.org > May to June 1997

Re: w3c.www.protocol.http.Request

From: Anselm Baird_Smith <abaird@www43.inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 19:38:23 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199705291738.TAA29906@www43.inria.fr>
To: e_mangi@utila.ifi.uni-klu.ac.at (Maria ANGI/HCM/97S)
Cc: www-jigsaw@w3.org
Maria ANGI writes:
 >  
 > > Maria ANGI writes:
 > >  > Hi!
 > >  > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > I have subclassed the HttpManager class.
 > >  > Now I have problems with the w3c.www.protocol.http.Request and Reply classes.
 > >  > It would be fine if they could have at least a protected constructor.
 > >  > 
 > > 
 > > I was rethinking about your query. I would be really interested to
 > > know (if possible) what kind of extensions you are writting, in
 > > particular couldn't that be done with filters ?
 > > 
 > > Anselm.
 > > 
 > 
 > What I am doing is implementing a caching hierarchy. It is not based on the 
 > ICP protocol.
 > So for example, I need to send a "HEAD" request to query the upper cache
 > for some informations and depending on these informations to send "GET" request.
 > I've wanted to use the HttpServer.runRequest(Request) method more times.

I don't know how far your scheme if from ICP, but consider that both
ICP and the entire caching proxy module are written as filters

 > If I would implement this through a filter it would be more complecated
 > and again I would need to instantiate a Request object(which is impossible
 > now because it hasn't accessable constructor). Of course I could make 
 > my own "myRequest" class with the same implementation like Request and
 > using it to emit requests. But it's not fine.

I undertsand, I'll make the request constructors protected

Anselm.
Received on Thursday, 29 May 1997 13:38:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 April 2012 12:13:26 GMT