Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I see and take your point. It is six of one and half a dozen of
another. What I'm confused about is why we need to initially specify
anything outside of the actual request. What problem are we trying to
solve? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are espousing so let me put
it in my own words and you tell me if it's accurate. Please ignore the
argument of using URIs or discrete parameters for me moment because I
think that they are obscuring my real concern.
HttpClient client = HttpClientFactory.create(baseURI);
client.send("/foo?pet=cat")
If this is accurate, I don't understand the need for the baseURI. Maybe
this is a MINA convention?
OK, I see where the disconnect is. We agree that the high-level API should
work as you describe. What was discussed earlier was a second, lower layer
to the API - one in which the user can take direct control over the actual
physical connection and impose their own policy. Use cases for the lower-
level API would include load-balancing, proxies, and that sort of thing: a
lower-level API for lower-level HTTP functions. This low-level API would,
through some mechanism, allow connections to be established and maintained
independently of the request mechanism - but in order to do so, there must
be a means to specify the actual connection information: protocol (scheme),
hostname, and port. How this is done is unimportant, as long as the
functionality is present. This way you get a balance of power and ease-of-use.
Hopefully this clarifies what I was trying to say. There was a bit of prior
context to the discussion, which I guess I was relying on a bit too much. :-)
- DML
