... On 14 November 2012 10:20, Simon IJskes - QCG <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14-11-12 10:49, Dan Creswell wrote: > >> Which implies a socket factory isn't required because there's only one way >> to "do" unicast and it's all taken care of under the covers. >> > > A socketfactory is also the place to post process Sockets [1]. So if you > want to keep Socket, there is no reason to do away with SocketFactory. > > Sorry, can't quite grok that last sentence. I agree re: post-processing being something one might do with a SocketFactory albeit there are things that would be acceptable to tweak and things that wouldn't as dictated by the URL. My point being that IMHO this isn't the best arrangement for doing little bits of customisation as it leaves plenty of potential for trapdoors. Better to clean it up and build something explicit to do what we're after, hence my support of Gregg's statements. [1] javax.net.SocketFactory javadoc: > "So for example, factories could be customized to return sockets with > different networking timeouts or security parameters already configured." > > > > -- > QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl > Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397 >
