osdir.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [vfs] new http4 provider, not replace http?


Hi Bernd,

Thanks for your remarks. Please see my comments inline below.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am for http4. In the begining it wont be maped in the StandardManager but can be changed later on.
Sounds good to me.

>
> I do wonder if we can get rid of a Special https Provider and have only one (http4) which can handle both Kinds of URLs… not quite sure, what do you think?
>From user's perspective, it seems better to keep 'https' separately
from 'http'. 'http4s' and 'http4' accordingly.
We can possibly consider nesting or adding somethings in
configuration, for example to allow
'http4://www.example.com/index.html',
'http4:http://www.example.com/index.html' (equivalent to the first) or
'http4:https://www.example.com/index.html. But that doesn't seem to
make anything more convenient than simply allowing either
'http4://www.example.com/index.html' or
'http4s://www.example.com/index.html'.
So, I'm personally inclined to keep the existing pattern to have
separate providers.

>
> Besides that, I wonder if we also (only?) should consider the new JDK httpclient api?
As I'm trying to scratch my own itch, I'd opt for providing a solution
with HttpComponents HttpClient v4 first. ;-) Also, it's very matured
and well-accepted, comparing with the new JDK HttpClient.
I'm open to a possibility in the near future for a new separate
provider, possibly called 'jdkhttp' with JDK HttpClient module.

Kind regards,

Woonsan

>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
> --
> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
>
> Von: Woonsan Ko
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. August 2018 18:35
> An: Commons Developers List
> Betreff: [vfs] new http4 provider, not replace http?
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to contribute for VFS-360. What a nice ticket number!
> After a brief look, I'm considering to add a new provider in a
> separate package, 'http4' (based on HttpComponents HttpClient),
> keeping the old one, 'http' (based on the old Commons HttpClient),
> as-is. The reason is that I don't want to break any public methods of
> the http provider package in v2.x range.
>
> BTW, Apache Camel has a similar concept: http component with v3 and
> http4 component with v4. [1]
> A difference is we need one more equivalent to the old 'https', like
> 'http4s'. It sounds a bit weird though.
>
> Any insights?
>
> Woonsan
>
> [1] http://camel.apache.org/components.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx