On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 18:59, Scott Nichol wrote: > > Ok, I got it. Thank you. But still no access to them. Some getters and > > setters for cookies and cookies2 would be nice. > > Good idea. I'll throw that in today. > > > And by the way, why don't you make some of the fields and methods > > protected so one can easily extend from your classes. Now I have to > > rewrite the entire class or modify the sources directly. > > It's hard to be perfect in anticipating where everyone will want to extend > the class hierarchies.
You are right. > I think the code usually tries to err on the side of > added "safety", so private is much more common than protected. There would > probably be more use of protected if Java had borrowed the C++ meaning of > the modifier, rather than opening protected up to the whole package. > > So, the approach generally taken is to change the modifier from private to > protected during a refactoring that makes it necessary. If it would benefit > you to have some particular method(s) changed so you can subclass, post it > to the list. Better yet, post your extension to the list as a patch so that > we can all benefit from your work. At this point no one would benefit from my work as I've done an work around in SOPAHTTPConnection and HTTPUtils so I can get access to all the cookies. With the latest updates from you this changes are of no use. Thanks again for your feedback and understanding. Remus Stratulat > > Scott Nichol > > > > > Best regards, > > Remus Stratulat > > > > > > On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 16:10, Scott Nichol wrote: > > > What you say is true of the latest release, but the current source, > > > available through the nightly distribution or CVS tree, supports > multiple > > > cookies. > > > > > > Scott Nichol > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Remus Stratulat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:56 AM > > > Subject: cookies > > > > > > > > > > Will be a version with support for multiple cookies and cookie > handling? > > > > > > > > Right now in SOAPHTTPConnection the responseHeaders can hold only the > > > > last cookie that was set (due to the fact that it's a Hashtable). I > know > > > > that the SOAP's main goal is not session maintaining but I'm > confronting > > > > with this problem. Along with this, an interface for accessing the > > > > cookieHeader and cookieHeader2 is necessary as some of us need to work > > > > with the cookies. Right now I will deal with this on my own as I can > but > > > > out there might be others that don't have the time or will to modify > > > > your source code. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Remus Stratulat > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > /** > > > > * Remus Stratulat - KrysalIDE maintainer > > > > * InterAkt Online. > > > > * > > > > * @phone +40 90 07 24 07 > > > > * @email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > * @web http://www.interakt.ro > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > > /** > > * Remus Stratulat - KrysalIDE maintainer > > * InterAkt Online. > > * > > * @phone +40 90 07 24 07 > > * @email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > * @web http://www.interakt.ro > > */ > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- /** * Remus Stratulat - KrysalIDE maintainer * InterAkt Online. * * @phone +40 90 07 24 07 * @email [EMAIL PROTECTED] * @web http://www.interakt.ro */ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
