On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: New coyote branch
>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
> > > > Justyna Horwat wrote:I looked in jakarta-tomcat-connectors and it doesn't
>look like
> > > > jakarta-tomcat-connectors has been branched yet. I checked the archives
> > > > and saw the vote results where it was decided that the HEAD of
> > > > jakarta-tomcat-connectors will be used for Tomcat 5 and Coyote 1.0 would
> > > > be branched.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to request that this branch be created. Remy?
> > > >
> > > > The reason I ask is that I'm working on a servlet 2.4 servlet request
> > > > events implementation which involves modifying CoyoteRequest.java.
> > >
> > > What kind of changes ? Coyote should be independent of servlet,
> > > if you need to add something you can add it to the main branch.
> > >
> > > 2.4 should be backward compatible - so it shouldn't change any
> > > behavior.
> > >
> >
> > Servlet 2.4 introduces attribute change listeners on the ServletRequest
> > interface, analogous to the ones on sessions and contexts. The
> > implementation of these features has to be in the concrete ServletRequest
> > instance's removeAttribute() and setAttribute() methods. See the public
> > draft spec for details.
> >
> > In the current Catalina archtecture, the connector provides this concrete
> > class -- and in the case at hand, it's CoyoteRequest.
>
> Few alternatives to branching:
> - move CoyoteRequest to jakarta-catalina ( we could also move Tomcat33
> classes in tomcat33 cvs ). We agreed that tomcat depends on coyote,
> not the reverse.
> - create a tomcat5 dir with the new methods.
>
> One important note: if the spec wants notification for _all_ request
> attribute changes, we'll also need to implement this in coyote.Request.
> Currently that require 2 new ActionCodes.
>
o.a.coyote.Request doesn't have setAttribute() or replaceAttribute()
methods, so I don't see why it would be affected -- only the Servlet 2.4
version of CoyoteRequest would seem to matter.
> We should also add an ActionCode for _get_ attribute, to support 'lazy'
> evaluation of some attributes.
>
> 3.3 uses a get/setInfo hook - it works for both Request and Context
> attributes.
>
I don't understand what these have to do with the
ServletRequest.removeAttribute() and ServletRequest.setAttribute() method
implementations.
> Costin
>
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
