GOTOU Yuuzou wrote:
>In message <3C967342.6040204@imperitek.com>,
> `David Corbin <dcorbin@imperitek.com>' wrote:
>
>>b) request attributes - I modeled this on java servlets, but there is
>>probably a more ruby-esque way to do this. It makes forward much more
>>useful.
>>
>
>It is not clear for me what the name of "attribute"
>suggests in HTTP message.
>
It was modeled on the Java servlets, much like the rest of this seems to
be. In J2EE(servlets/JSP), "attributes" exist at four different scopes
- Application, servlet, request, and page, if I remember correctly.
>
>HTTPRequest is a representation of the HTTP request
>messages, and I want the user-defined data to be
>managed by the user-defined containers.
>
The intent behind "attribute" is to be able to set user-data that is
automatically get carried along with the rest of the request, and in a
very annonymous way. It's perfectly reasonable to expect several
different "handlers" to need to "add or extract" data to the "request
chain". The only other solution I can see is to add a third argument to
all the service, do_GET and do_PUT methods, which is nothing more than
the Hash that I put inside the request object.
You mentioned 'the user-defined containers'. What user-defined containers?
>>c) I modified the "handler creation". For handlers that don't need
>>instance data, I wanted to be able to instantiate one handler at the
>>beginning, and have it reused- this is both an efficiency issue, and an
>>issue of I want to "build" the handler using new() and other method
>>calls, not by building a giant hash of options. But you can the old
>>style handlers continue to work just fine.
>>
>
>get_instance() is just a factory method. You can also
>make it as an instance method which returns itself.
>Have you seen httpservlet/prochandler.rb?
>
Yes, I did see it. But it fails to address the point about *how* I want
to create the handler. I thought about that, but I didn't want to build
a giant "option" hash. Futhermore, I'd argue that option my patch
offers is more intuitive to new users.
>
>Well, "require_path_info?" might not be necessary ;)
>
I'm not sure I fully understood that method to begin with.
>
>Does anyone have any ideas?
>--
>gotoyuzo
>
>
David