Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact commons-httpclient-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list commons-httpclient-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 16602 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2003 02:12:37 -0000 Received: from tomts5.bellnexxia.net (HELO tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net) (209.226.175.25) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Jan 2003 02:12:37 -0000 Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.230.110.133]) by tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20030131021245.KUGJ17488.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:12:45 -0500 Message-ID: <3E39DB98.1020103@sympatico.ca> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:12:40 -0500 From: Jeffrey Dever User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Commons HttpClient Project Subject: Re: Not giving ourselves enough credit on the home page References: <3E396176.3080909@tibco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.65.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N All good points. I had not yet had a chance to update those documents. Its great to have input from everyone as the content is the hardest part. I created a bug report for it and am refrencing back to this mail thread. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16625 BTW: anyone can submit patches to the xdocs as well as the java files! -jsd Eric Johnson wrote: > Based on the recent URI discussion, and some other points, it strikes > me that we could take a little more credit for the work that has gone > into HttpClient. > > On the HttpClient home page > (http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/httpclient/index.html) four RFCs > are listed. > > Given all the discussion about URIs being thrown around, I think it > might be reasonable to add RFC 2396 - for URI compliance. Then there > is RFC 1867, for multipart/form-data POST requests (I think I got the > right number there). Are there RFCs corresponding to our "cookie" > compliance? Any other RFCs we can claim credit for conforming to? > > With the recent "Protocol" changes, I think we've made it relatively > straightforward for clients of HttpClient to plug in their own secure > sockets implementations, making it easier to use third party, non-Sun > solutions. > > Someone posted recently that HttpClient appears to be faster than the > corresponding Sun solution. > > Any other up-sides that people can think of? To push adoption of > HttpClient, I think we want to get as much up on this page as we can. > Not to mention, the next time my boss comes and asks me exactly why > I've been sinking time into HttpClient, I can point to this page, and > ask "what's not to like?" > > Just a thought. > > -Eric. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > commons-httpclient-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > commons-httpclient-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org > >