- From: Anselm Baird-Smith <abaird@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 18:55:52 +0500
- To: alex@access.com.au (Alexandre Rafalovitch)
- Cc: www-jigsaw@w3.org
Alexandre Rafalovitch writes: > Hi, > > I am trying to extend DebugFilter to trace information flow in mine and > supplied Resource classes. However, I have problems with it, because there > are not enough methods to expose this information. > > For example, I am trying to debug LastModifyed / IfModifiedSince > interaction and for this purpose I need to dump their values from > Request/Reply corresponding headers. Now I am able to dump 'If modified > Since' header by using getIfModifiedSince() method of Request (or dump in > MIMIHeaders as it might be). However, I see no way to access LastModified > information in Reply. > I do not want to modify Library Reply class and recompile it, so what > options do I have left? Well, you can safely add this one to the repy class: public long getLastModify() { if ( (set & LAST_MODIFIED_BIT) == 0 ) throw new HTTPRuntimeException(this , "getLastModify" , "no date set.") ; return this.last_modified; } This method will be there in the next version of the Request/Reply APIs. It's not there because I just never need it... > On a general note, Request class does not allow to set headers, even though > I can probably get around it by using defineField and getField in > MIMEHeaders class. Reply, on the other hand; does not have even that much, > and does not give out any information except for content* and status. Yep, Reply needs some reworking to get this extensibility problem fixed. BTW for Request, defineField and getField were intended to play this role. > What would I have to do if I wanted to use my filters to modify headers on > the way in and out. Or if I wanted to log all redirects and record referer > who was pointing to old place, etc.. I really don't see a way to do that > now as a filter on resource, not part of resource itself. You are correct, the redesign in the way is much more rational (each field has both a getter and a setter, etc.) It should also be much more efficient. > Comments anybody? If I am right it _might_ require 6th redesign Anselm > was talking about. The redesign only affects the Reply / Request internals, as I said, I hope to be able to do this without changing the rest of the world... Anselm.
Received on Friday, 21 June 1996 18:56:00 UTC