[Web-SIG] [server-side] request/response objects

David Fraser davidf at sjsoft.com
Mon Oct 27 02:47:12 EST 2003

Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:

>For what it's worth, I never liked the request/response separation either.
>I like a single object from which you can read() and to which you can
>write(), just like a file. Imagine if for file IO you had to have an
>object to read and another one to write?
>(I would agree that perhaps "request" is a misnomer, but I can't think of
>anything better)
Connection? I think someone suggested "Transaction" for this, but it 
sounds out of place here...


>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Bill Janssen wrote:
>>>When you stop and think about it: *every* request object will have a
>>>matching response object. Why have two objects if they come in pairs? You
>>>will never see one without the other, and they are intrinsically tied to
>>>each other. So why separate them?
>>Mainly because they are two separate concepts.  For instance, in my
>>code, I always pass two arguments; one is the response, which the user
>>manipulates to send back something to the caller, and the other is the
>>request, which is basically a dictionary of all parameter values, plus
>>a few extra special ones like 'path'.

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list