Re: [cp-patches] RFC: [Patch] rewrite of classpath/gnu/java/net/protocol/http/*

[Chris Burdess]

David Daney wrote:
> > You would probably have a better chance if you threw out all the 
> > inetlib classes and started from scratch with a pull-based client.
>
> What are you talking about?  I am not using inetlib.

The gnu.java.net.protocol.http package is the inetlib HTTP client.

> I do agree with sections 3.2 and 4.1 of the GNU coding standards.  I 
> do think that Classpath *should* be compatible with the reference 
> implementation (Sun's).  I do think that Classpath *should* be robust. 
> It *should* "Avoid arbitrary limits ...". To do otherwise "... is not 
> acceptable in a GNU utility."

I agree with you. The inetlib HTTP client was not designed to fulfil 
the contract of the URLConnection interface. We used it because it 
fixed a lot of bugs in the previous implementation, not because it was 
perfectly suited.

> Your responses above just don't make sense to me.  You seem to be 
> saying that because the current implementation of Classpath's HTTP 
> code is architecturally limited, I should come up with some private 
> re-implementation of the standard java runtime so that ... I don't 
> know what.

I am saying that because the current implementation of Classpath's 
HttpURLConnection (based on inetlib) is architecturally limited with 
respect to the URLConnection interface, you should reimplement it using 
a different architecture and therefore different classes.
--
Chris Burdess