Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hc.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "HttpComponents Project" <dev@hc.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <1353097416.20127.2.camel@ubuntu>
Subject: Re: Log misleading for User-Agent
From: Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>
To: HttpComponents Project <dev@hc.apache.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:23:36 +0100
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOGo0VbWACVXzzxsj+GZ1aMVijPNUUaeCvM=oPTto2irxukp2A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CACZkXPxDT0WxHmnLrM95PUWzLT_Hoc7KukZ4Ofx+RoDp4Xj_Mg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAMHjJ=Ru+30Tne4zNBbXm50-oXmtmP2c_nd1iyGCva6xCr1dXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1353081301.20463.23.camel@ubuntu>
	 <CAOGo0VbWACVXzzxsj+GZ1aMVijPNUUaeCvM=oPTto2irxukp2A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 17:33 +0000, sebb wrote:
> On 16 November 2012 15:55, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 06:38 -0500, Jon Moore wrote:
> >> Yes, I'd be in favor of either one of these changes (removing or
> >> reporting dynamically the right version). I'd probably lean towards
> >> removing it if pressed to express an opinion.
> >>
> >> As I recall (although I don't have the code in front of me), the
> >> CachingHttpClient sends a slightly different User-Agent, mentioning
> >> the fact that the cache is present in the stack in the comment field.
> >> I think this made sense originally, when it was really an add-on
> >> module. However, since Oleg is re-wiring the "stack" for the default
> >> client in 4.3, that may not be needed any more.
> >>
> >> It could just be that I'm remembering the comment in the Via header
> >> the caching layer adds, though; in which case the caching client
> >> wouldn't modify the User-Agent.
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi All:
> >> >
> >> > At the debug logging level I see:
> >> >
> >> > User-Agent: Apache-HttpClient/4.2.1 (java 1.5)
> >> >
> >> > But I am running on Java 6... so, Why is 1.5 hard coded?
> >> >
> >> > Could/Should we remove "(java 1.5)" or have it report the correct version?
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > Gary
> >> >
> >
> > If my memory serves me well the original intention was to include a
> > minimal JRE version a particular release is compatible with.
> >
> > I am fine with either dropping it or replacing with a dynamically
> > generated JRE version requests are generated with.
> 
> Or replace with:
> 
> User-Agent: Apache-HttpClient/4.2.1 (Java 1.5+)
> 
> if we want to keep the original meaning (but clarify it).
> 

Sounds very reasonable.

> Do other user agents include OS/Java details in their UA strings?
> 

I believe JRE's internal HTTP client does.

Oleg


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