On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > Some valves in the Catalina pipeline use that. > > It probably should be done at the protocol layer, but I can't do that for > compatibility reasons, so I think the socket should be set as a note in the > Request object (as is suggested in the commented out code in the HTTP/1.1 > protocol handler).
Ok. I hope the code can deal with 'no socket' case - since in Ajp case the socket is completely useless. I have big doubts the code that calls getSocket() can even work with ajp or pureTLS or other things. Probably a good idea to find where it is and call the right thing ( like getAttribute for certs, etc ). > > - Any reason for not extending HttpBaseRequest ? > > You mean HttpRequestBase in Catalina ? > This object's implementation is bad, and I wanted to deprecate it to make > that obvious. There's little code duplication overall. > There's also no ugly casts to the XXBase objects in the Catalina pipeline > (everthing uses the interfaces), so it works fine. > > I'll do a CoyoteConnector2 for Catalina soon too to see how it works. > Probably tomorrow. Ok, what about CoyoteConnector3 ? I already started with 2 :-) ( but I'll start working on Jk if you do the Connector ) Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
