- From: Anselm Baird_Smith <abaird@www43.inria.fr>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 19:38:23 +0200 (MET DST)
- 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 UTC