commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Woonsan Ko <woon...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [vfs] new http4 provider, not replace http?
Date Fri, 02 Nov 2018 15:02:24 GMT
Hi Gary,

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:54 PM Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Woonsan,
>
> I've applied the patch as is and all it well. Thank you!

Thank you very much!

>
> Food for thought: We should also consider HttpClient *5* which just
> released its second beta (I am helping there as well.)
>
> If you feel like adding another provider for HttpClient 5 Beta 2 (it is in
> a different package as the API is different), that would give us the most
> flexibility perhaps.

I do. I'll try it out and hopefully submit a pull request with a new
JIRA ticket some day.

>
> At some point in the future we can decide which provide would be mapped to
> "http" and "https".
>
> To that end, I wonder if the current "http" provider based on HttpClient 3
> should be repackaged as "http3" so that we can create the underlying toggle
> and test it.

It seems already possible IIUC:
- StandardFileSystemManager's parsing logic on providers.xml allows a
provider to register multiple schemes. For example, JarFileProvider
has already registered itself with jar, jar, ear, etc.
- So, we may set the schemes for the current default HttpFileProvider
(HTTPClient3 based) to both "http3" and "http". "http3s" and "https"
for the corresponding one accordingly.
- At some moment later, when deciding which one to be the default
"http" or "https" provider, we can simply change the providers.xml.

I will submit another simple PR to set the default ones to [ "http3",
"http" ] and [ "http3s", "https" ] soon.

Am I in the right track?

Woonsan

>
> Thoughts?
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:42 PM Woonsan Ko <woonsan@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > 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@apache.org> 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@apache.org> 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@zusammenkunft.net> 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@commons.apache.org
> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message