asterisk-java-users

[Asterisk-java-users] Suggested removal of Reply and Request builders

[Steve D. <Ste...@Su...>]

As we discussed I proposed getting rid of ReplyBuilder and
RequestBuilder and folding their functionality into the AGIReply and
AGIRequest(impl) classes.  Speaking of which, why does request have an
interface and implementation and reply doesn't?

I removed the following files:

net/sf/asterisk/fastagi/ReplyBuilder.java
net/sf/asterisk/fastagi/RequestBuilder.java
net/sf/asterisk/fastagi/impl/ReplyBuilderImpl.java
net/sf/asterisk/fastagi/impl/RequestBuilderImpl.java

I modified:

net/sf/asterisk/fastagi/AGIRequest.java
net/sf/asterisk/fastagi/impl/AGIReaderImpl.java
net/sf/asterisk/fastagi/impl/AGIRequestImpl.java
net/sf/asterisk/fastagi/reply/AGIReply.java

Note, I could have done more caching in the caller ID methods, but
decided it was probably not necessary.

The modified files are in the attached tar.gz file (sourceforge blocks 
zip files).

Re: [Asterisk-java-users] Suggested removal of Reply and Request builders

[Stefan R. <sr...@re...>]

On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 19:57 -0700, Steve Drach wrote:
> As we discussed I proposed getting rid of ReplyBuilder and
> RequestBuilder and folding their functionality into the AGIReply and
> AGIRequest(impl) classes.

Thanks for your patch. I adjusted my test cases and commited your
changes to CVS HEAD.

> Speaking of which, why does request have an
> interface and implementation and reply doesn't?

There was no appropriate reason to do so therefore I split the AGIReply
into interface and implementation just like AGIRequest.

=Stefan

Re: [Asterisk-java-users] Suggested removal of Reply and Request builders

[Steve D. <Ste...@Su...>]

Stefan Reuter wrote:

>On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 19:57 -0700, Steve Drach wrote:
>  
>
>>As we discussed I proposed getting rid of ReplyBuilder and
>>RequestBuilder and folding their functionality into the AGIReply and
>>AGIRequest(impl) classes.
>>    
>>
>
>Thanks for your patch. I adjusted my test cases and commited your
>changes to CVS HEAD.
>  
>
Hmm, I must not have CVS HEAD then, since I don't see any changes in 
AGIRequestImpl, at least.