DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435 New Preferences Architecture ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-09-07 21:44 ------- - To replace the loading of defaults from properties I think we need an HttpParamsFactory. This > would replace the static GLOBAL_DEFAULTS. HttpParamsFactory would have a plugable mechanism > for defining the default params. Things like the static initializer in HttpMethodParams could be > moved there. Mike, I just do not see how this can work without resorting to system properties. How are you planning to initialize the factory class? I think that any properties persistence mechanism can simply feed the GLOBAL_DEFAULTS with the values retrieved from a persistent storage. Is class factory pattern really necessary in this particular case. Probably I just can't see an elegant way of implementing it. Give me a gentle push in the right direction. > > - Are isParameterFalse() and isParameterTrue() necessary? Seems like getBooleanParameter() > should be enough :) > True, but I just felt isParameterTrue() & isParameterFalse() required one parameter less and were a bit more readable. I do not mind removing them, though. > - All of the various PROTOCOL_STRICTNESS_PARAMS should be broken out to individual methods I > think. > I have to disagree. In my opinion it would create too much clutter. But again, if the majority favours this approach, I'll happily oblige. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
