>>>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:52:01 +0100, Greg Wilkins <gregw_at_intalio.com> said:
GW> I've been working with Push a little bit more and have an alternative
GW> proposal for the API.
Well, I'm sorry to see the simplicity of the existing API have to give
way to something that seems to be starting to get quite complex.
GW> I've started work on this, but thought I'd seek some feedback before I
GW> commit too much effort. The idea is that often there will be many
GW> resources to push and that a lot of the work needed to work out headers,
GW> sessions and cookies is common to all the pushes. So we need a new
GW> PushBuilder instance that does all this work once. We would obtain a
GW> PushBuilder from a new method on the request:
GW> /** Get a PushBuilder associated with this request initialized as
GW> follows:<ul>
GW> * <li>The method is initialized to "GET"</li>
If we obtain the PushBuilder from the current request, then why would
the method not be taken on from the existing request?
[...]
GW> * <p>Each call to getPushBuilder() will return a new instance
GW> * of a PushBuilder based off this Request. Any mutations to the
GW> * returned PushBuilder are not reflected on future returns.
GW> * @return A new PushBuilder or null if push is not supported
GW> */
GW> public PushBuilder getPushBuilder()
I to prefer the isPushSupported() method. I think calling
getPushBuilder() should throw IllegalStateException if push is not
supported.
Ed
--
| edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
| 56 days til DevNexus 2015
| 66 days til JavaLand 2015
| 76 days til CONFESS 2015