>, I don't like that Steve used HttpClient > to do a simple fetch. <get> does not need it. Yes, HttpClient is > great and all, but I view it as overkill for this, and an undue > dependency, which pulls in yet another dependency.
yeah, I know. I was just getting something up and running. to be useful this needs to be part of ant core, and so dependency free.
> > As I though then, and still think now, dependency downloading > should be part of Ant code, and not require anything more than > JDK 1.2. I know Steve thinks the JDK stinks, but for downloading > files java.net is plenty enough, and <get> demonstrates that! >
Oh, Iove the JDK, and am running jdk1.5 on my home box right now. what I dont like about the HTTP stack is that it is so inconsistent from version to version. It is the only bit of the library where I have left abuse on the bug page, the bug in question being the "cant delete cookies" defect, which was "fixed" to prevent you setting >1 cookie.
yes, get makes more sense; I was just being lazy.
actually, the other advantage of java.net.URLConnection is that you get filesystem repository support for free; httpclient is -I think- HTTP only. And it appears to be entering a period of API instability.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
