2006/3/1, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh <email@example.com>: > > Krzysztof Rzymkowski wrote: > > >Here are my point on why not to do > > HttpServletRequest request (req); > > > >1. ServletRequest's methods (as in JavaServlet API) do not provide > enought > >information to allow the creation of HttpServletRequst. For example how > can > >I create a RequestDispather having only a ServletRequest? > > > > > Bad example - RequestDispatcher is part of javax.servlet package, > not javax.servlet.http, and theoretically servlet might request > non-HTTP resource through getRequestDispatcher() interface > (presuming different kinds of servlet can live within same > ServletContext, which is something that isn't clear to me). Indeed. Not a very good example. >2. HttpServletRequest extends the functionality of ServletRequest. It > should > >only inherit from ServletRequest. It's not supposed to be a wrapper on > >ServletRequest. > > > > > "Not supposed to be"? ;-) > There is nothing wrong with providing extended object that wraps > around some other object of base class. It isn't used often, and it > doesn't make sense often, but is reasonable under certain > circumstances. Saying "not supposed to be" I mean that creators of the JavaServlet API meant HttpServletRequest to extend ServletRequest, not wrap it. HttpServletRequest does not have a constructor taking a ServletRequest.
Authoright © Total Knowledge: 2001-2008