cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oleg Kalnichevski <>
Subject Re: Async http client experiments....
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:49:09 GMT
On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 10:12 -0400, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 10:55 -0400, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Alessio Soldano <> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 09/04/2012 09:03 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> That said, there is still a bit of work todo:
> >>>> 
> >>>> 1) Proxy support - haven't looked into this at all yet.   Hard for me
to test as well as I don't have any sort of proxy setup anywhere.  I may need to look into
how to setup a simple proxy to dig into this.
> >>> 
> >>> Not sure if this would be the best option for you, but some time ago I
> >>> wrote some JBossWS tests related to http proxy configuration by using
> >>> LittleProxy [1], perhaps it's convenient here too.
> >>> 
> >>> [1] 
> >> 
> >> Cool. I see they just started a vote for 0.5 so if I wait a day or three, I
can just start with the newer version.  :-)
> >> 
> >> Thanks for the pointer.
> >> 
> >> Dan
> >> 
> > 
> > I personally use Squid [1] running locally in non-daemon mode to test
> > HttpClient against. It is one of the most widely used proxies around.
> I was originally looking at this, but there is a big disadvantage:  it's external to
the build.   The nice thing about the littleproxy thing is in your junit tests, you can pop
up a proxy on any port, use it, bring it down, etc… just like any other service we may be
using.   It would work on every developers machine.  
> Right now, we have ZERO coverage of the proxy support in CXF, even for the HttpURLConnection
based transport.   With the little proxy thing, I'm hoping to rectify that.    That said,
I don't think it provides all the various possible proxy situations that squid can, but at
this point, some tests are better than none.   :-)

This is certainly a very valid point. Actually we are in the same boat.
Close to zero coverage of proxy code. And we have all the building
blocks necessary to put together a full blown caching proxy. The trouble
is that the _real_ troublemaker is never the proxy itself. In most cases
proxies are almost transparent to the client. The real ugly b**ch is
always a combination of HTTP proxy and authentication (either on the
proxy or the target side), especially NTLM, which is not very easy to


View raw message