Howdy,
I'm also not a fan of this patch.  I don't think it's a particularly good idea
to modify the session interface for 4.1.x at this point.

Yoav Shapira

--- Bill Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Olsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 1:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change getSession() in org.apache.catalina.Session from
> HttpSession to a more general interface (enhancement request 21169)
> 
> 
> > Remy Maucherat wrote:
> > > Brian Olsen wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hey Guys,
> > >>
> > >> I just made a proposed patch for the enhancement request I made
> > >> regarding the SIP Servlet API
> > >> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21169
> > >>
> > >> It adds a new interface org.apache.catalina.ServletSession that
> > >> contains the methods that HttpSession has in common with
> > >> SipSession and SipApplicationSession.
> > >>
> > >> The interface changes are non-intrusive meaning that it changes or
> > >> adds no functionality so if a class implements HttpSession it will also
> > >> implement all the methods in ServletSession.
> > >>
> > >> To make catalina support the new interface have have made the
> > >> following changes:
> > >> org.apache.catalina.Session - changed to return a ServletSession in
> > >> the getSession() method
> > >> org.apache.catalina.session.StandardSession - makes it implement
> > >> ServletSession and typecasts to HttpSession where needed.
> > >> org.apache.catalina.session.StandardSessionFacade - makes it implement
> > >> ServletSession
> > >> org.apache.coyote.tomcat5.CoyoteRequest - typecasts from
> > >> ServletSession to HttpSession in the getSession( boolean )
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not that thrilled by the patch, because we made the decision in TC 5
> > > to work only with the HTTP protocol, for complexity reasons. Actually,
> > > it's merely the underlying protocol having to behave like HTTP (although
> > > the older TC 4.0 was supposedly protocol generic, it ended up being
> > > designed with HTTP in mind, so it wasn't much better).
> > >
> > > I know a bit the SIP spec, and that patch would sove the problem for
> > > sessions. How do you plan to solve it for the connector ?
> > > (the idea is that Coyote - supporting HTTP and JK - will remain the only
> > > supported connector in TC 5, the internal Catalina API being conserved
> > > for compatibility, or at least easy porting, of any old Catalina module)
> > I don't see how there should be a problem with the connector, besides
> > the fact that it has to also do outgoing connections. This only means
> > that it gets a little more complex than the ordinary connector but not
> > anything I have worries about.
> >
> > It is sad that you made that descision especially with the arrival of
> > SIP Servlets that is the first real specification for using servlets for
> > something other than HTTP. Before you could only guess as to how
> > servlets otherwise could be used.
> > But how will this decision affect the future of the internal Catalina
> > API??? Will you deprecate all of it, just parts, redesign it all from
> > scratch??
> 
> Like Remy, I'm -0 on the patch.  As I read Remy's post, this means that
> neither of us will actually veto it if some other developer decides to post
> it.  However, neither of us consider it to be a-good-idea, so we will be
> looking for implementation holes to veto ;-).
> 
> The internal Catalina API (e.g. org.apache.catalina.*) is pretty stable.
> There are no current plans to change it.
> 
> >
> > I also have another project further ahead in the process than this one
> > (It actually has running code), where I have implemented my own RTSP
> > Servlet API using Catalina and partly based on Coyote. It's my hope to
> > start making it into a proper Java specification later this year.
> >
> > So I'm very interested in what the future internals of Tomcat will look
> > like since two of my projects rely on them.
> >
> > - Brian
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


=====
Yoav Shapira
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to