Tarun, >From what I know of HttpClient's historical background the project started as a >spin-off of a bigger one. Many design decisions that were perfectly OK for a >bare-minimum library with a limited scope turned out quite constraining once >HttpClient started to evolve into a comprehensive general-purpose HTTP toolkit. The >first generation of HttpClient developers is long gone already and we can only guess >as to why certain things have been designed the way they are today.
We are perfectly aware of many shortcomings of the existing design (including this one) and are planning to embark on a complete API overhaul right after 2.1 release. HttpMethod interface split into HttpRequest/HttpResponse pair is the very first item on our to-do list Regards, Oleg -----Original Message----- From: Elankath, Tarun (Cognizant) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: doubt on HttpClient design regarding HttpMethod Hi all, I am new to HttpClient and was reading through its "Getting started" section. What struck me immediately is that HttpMethods are full-fledged objects of their own in HttpClient. I think this is a great idea. However, I don't understand why HttpClient couldn't have something like a HttpResponse object that is returned when execute() is called. It just seems a bit kludgy to call getResponse() on the HttpMethod object itself. Was there a design reason on why this was done ? PLUS: I am enjoying this library. Thank you for it! Regards, Tarun --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
