osdir.com


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

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


Could someone please review my PR?
- https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/38

Woonsan


On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 9:11 AM Woonsan Ko <woonsan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Bernd / Experts,
>
> I've submitted a PR for VFS-360. Find my summary in the comment as well.
> - https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/38
>
> Could you please review the changes?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Woonsan
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Woonsan Ko <woonsan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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