hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Porting methodology for maximum backwards compatibility
Date Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:30:55 GMT
Hi Oleg,

What you are basically saying is that there is no direct port.

That's really discouraging.  I'm going to have to reconsider removing the
deprecations in that case.

Karl



On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:

> On March 25, 2014 9:37:10 AM CET, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi Oleg,
> >
> >I've been running into significant difficulties porting ManifoldCF's
> >various connectors to the new HttpClient 4.3.x paradigms.  Basically,
> >when
> >I do what I think would be the natural port, I wind up currently with
> >connections that often don't work.  Since MCF is a bit special in that
> >we
> >don't have instances of every different kind of repository just hanging
> >around, that turns this port into a very high-risk affair, unless I can
> >come up with a methodology to do it that has a high degree of backwards
> >compatibility.
> >
> >With that in mind, let me ask your advice about how best to look at the
> >problem.
> >
> >Most of our connectors used to do the following:  They'd create a
> >DefaultHttpClient instance, change various parameters for it, and then
> >use
> >it in an execute() somewhere.  What I tried to do based on the builder
> >model was then the following:
> >
> >- use custom() to create a RequestConfig.Builder object
> >- use custom() to create a SocketConfig.Builder object
> >- create an HttpClientBuilder object using HttpClients.custom()
> >- set various properties, including defaultSocketConfig() and
> >defaultRequestConfig() and the pool reference
> >- build the httpclient instance
> >
> >
> >What I need to know is the following:
> >(1) How am I *supposed* to do this now?  Am I doing it right?  Should I
> >instead be passing the RequestConfig into the execute()?  What is your
> >preferred canonical form for a request?
> >(2) What should I change to most closely mimic what was taking place
> >before?
> >
> >Thanks again for your help.
> >
> >Karl
>
> You should not try to mimic the old behavior and use HttpContext to
> customize various aspects of http request execution.
>
> Oleg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message