Hi Oleg, I agree the name could be much better, so for that reason deprecating it is a good idea. However, I think it's very important to continue to include a method that marks a method as recyclable, so that responses that are only partially consumed (or completely unread) can still be reused for further requests. Part of the problem is I think that there methods don't mix well between blocking & non-blocking entities. Something that is a natural fit for a blocking interface doesn't work at all in a non-blocking one, whereas something that's natural in a non-blocking interface is awkward and difficult to use in a blocking manner.
So, while I agree that it should be deprecated in name, I don't believe the functionality should be deprecated... if that makes any sense. Sam On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 20:12 +0200, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 13:00 -0400, Sam Berlin wrote: > > > > * As far as streaming entities are concerned #consumeContent is > > > > equivalent to a trivial code snippet > > > > > > > > InputStream instream = entity.getContent(); > > > > if (instream != null) instream.close(); > > > > > > Is that all consumeContent does? I was under the impression that it > > > gobbled up the rest of the data (assuming there was unread data), and > > > left the connection in a state that it can be reused by subsequent > > > requests. > > > > Sam, > > > > The initial intent of this method was indeed to ensure the connection > > can be reused, but it just does not work with NIO entities introduced > > recently. Besides, for all existing blocking entities the implementation > > of this method merely closes the input stream and that is it. > > > > > If all it does is close the inputstream (and by extension, > > > close the connection), then I'm +1 on the change. If it instead read > > > the data & left the connection usable, I'm -1 on it. > > > > > > > But this is the responsibility of the underlying input stream #close() > > anyways. This is precisely the reason I do not see a lot of value in > > #consumeContent(). I also do not like the fact its name conflicts with > > that of the ConsumingNHttpEntity#consumeContent(). > > > > Oleg > > > > Sam, > > Please let me know if you still object to this change. If not, I'll go > head and commit the changes. Otherwise, I'll leave things as they are. > > > Oleg > > > > > > > > Sam > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
