On Feb 9, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Mike Heath wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
<snip>
That's a good thought. The reason that the URL was originally put
in the
HttpClient constructor (as well as the request) was to allow the
management
of connections to be separated from the URL request.
Realistically, a
URL
could be dropped in favor of discrete scheme/hostname/port
parameters on
an connection object. Though it's not always desirable to do
this, so
specifying and maintaining a physical connection should be an
optional
kind
of thing to do.
Not sure why one needs to specify the URL so far in advance.
I like the idea of specifying a base URI for the HttpClient. So you
use
a base URI of something like "http://somedomain.foo"; and subsequent
requests could then do something like get("/bar") which would do a GET
on "http://somedomain.foo/bar";.
This would require further abstraction than what AHC has to offer
currently.
I think that this bit can be, and is, handled with URLs. I don't see
the advantage of adding complexity to the metaphor and, hence, the API.
Regards,
Alan
