- 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