cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Async http client experiments....
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2012 13:42:55 GMT
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 15:30 -0400, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Just ditch HttpHost. You obviously need a richer class to represent
> >> connection routes. HttpClient has HttpRoute class for that matter. You
> >> probably should be using a custom class that also includes HTTP proxy
> >> and SSL context bits specific to CXF.
> >> 
> >> Does this help you in any way?
> > 
> > Yep.   Just feels like I have to subclass/override a lot of behavior from HC instead
of "using" it.   If HttpHost wasn't final, it would be so much more useful.   Is there a particular
reason why it has to be final?
> > 
> > Still not sure about the Proxy stuff at all, but that's likely because I don't know
much about Proxies at all.  I'll likely need to look more into what proxy stuff does on the
wire.
> 
> OK.  Went ahead and ripped out the HttpHost related stuff and replaced with a CXFHttpHost
which is basically a copy of the HttpHost with extra params for the TLS and Proxy stuff (Proxy
stuff unused right now).   With that, we're back to a  single connection for all the TLS requests
(providing they CAN).  So that looks good now.    That pretty much just leaves the Proxy stuff
as the major missing piece.
> 

Would not aggregation be more appropriate here? 

class CXFRoute {

  HttpHost host;
  HttpHost proxy;
  SSLStuff sstuff;
  
}

Oleg


Mime
View raw message