[Mono-devel-list] SimpleWorkerRequest and XSP

[eric lindvall]

I'm not sure if there's a bug or not, but this has very little to do with
it.

I've been trying to track down the bug, but from everything I can see,
there isn't one.

but there are two separate discussions here:

a) I'm doing what I can to make the SimpleWorkerRequest work like the MS
   implementation for things that I am working on on my own. this may be
   introducing bugs into the SimpleWorkerRequest, but in response to the
   specific web_xml.aspx bug, I cannot seem to replicate the problem
   reliably. also, I haven't been able to see how the code I added could
   have even been in much of the code path for XSP (as I showed in a
   previous email).

b) while it seems to work to use the SimpleWorkerRequest for XSP, I don't
   see what the point is -- you're overloading all the methods that
   SimpleWorkerRequest overrides, and then passing in empty arguments to
   the constructor, thus making anything it could give you useless.

   HttpWorkerRequest is there as a basis for anyone to make a
   WorkerRequest object. SimpleWorkerRequest is there if you want to have
   a WorkerRequest object that works by passing in the page that was hit,
   and then waiting for the response.

I would suggest that writing something that utilized the
SimpleWorkerRequest as it is implemented would be a much better test of if
ours works and if it works similarly to the MS implementation than to have
XSP be the test-case where the only methods that will be stressed are:
 - the constructor with 3 arguments (all of them are null/empty/similar)
 - anything that is called by the constructor
 - and EndOfRequest()


On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Gonzalo Paniagua Javier wrote:

> El jue, 26-06-2003 a las 05:07, eric lindvall escribió:
> > It seems that there isn't any functionality from the SimpleWorkerRequest
> > that is used in XSP, so i was wondering why you couldn't just inherit from
> > the HttpWorkerRequest?
> > 
> > I tried hitting the test directory after making these changes, and
> > everything still seemed to work.. including web_xml.aspx. =)
> > 
> > comments?
> 
> Yes. This is just a workaround. We should find the bug, not hide it.