.net? Heresy! :) Since we're in Java land we should go with Java speak imho. That said, header and parameter are also in the http rfc vocabulary I believe, but would have to check.
Will hold off for more responses before making changes. Cheers Chris On 22/05/2009, Greg Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >>Just a thought, but the same thing technically applies to request headers >>(aka RequestProperties) and request parameters (aka Arguments) as well, >> i.e. >>it's perfectly valid to have multiple values for the same name... > > True. Dictionary#get() can only return a single type, so > ResponsePropertiesDictionary has to implement Dictionary<String, > ImmutableList<String>>. However, put() can support overloads. We could > potentially add put(String, Sequence<String>) methods to ArgumentsDictionary > and RequestPropertiesDictionary to support this feature. > >>In fact - I think the names of these classes are misleading - why not just >>stick with what people are generally used to? >>e.g. >>ResponseProperties should really really ResponseHeaders >>RequestProperties should really be RequestHeaders >>Arguments should really be RequestParameters > > The names are consistent with their .NET equivalents, as I recall. I find > the naming to be fairly intuitive, but I'm not opposed to changing it. What > do others think? > > > -- Sent from my mobile device
