On 18 March 2013 09:40, Jocelyn Fiat <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In library/server/wsf/router/wsf_routed_service.e:
>
> > @@ -4,20 +4,25 @@ note
> >  	date: "$Date$"
> >  	revision: "$Revision$"
> >
> > -deferred class
> > -	WSF_ROUTED_SERVICE
> > +deferred class	WSF_ROUTED_SERVICE
>
> I am wondering .... should we not having a descendant of
> WSF_ROUTED_SERVICE to put all this logique
> and keep WSF_ROUTED_SERVICE very small?
>
> It's still fairly small. There's not much more to go in here, I think.
Most of the rest will go into the handlers, as far as I can foresee.

I could make a WSF_ROUTED_SKELETON_SERVICE instead. Then I would need to
change the inheritance of it's existing descendant
WSF_URI_TEMPLATE_ROUTED_SERVICE (or have a descendant of that too - this
starts to get messy).

> My main concern is that some WSF user might want to implement their own
> way to handle those HTTP/1.1
> Maybe I am all wrong about trying to keep WSF as flexible as possible.
>
> Any comment?
>
The descendant can always redefine routines that aren't marked frozen
(subject to the postconditions of course). I think that gives sufficient
flexibility (up to the point of violating HTTP/1.1).