Could someone please review my PR? - https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/38
Woonsan On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 9:11 AM Woonsan Ko <woon...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Bernd / Experts, > > I've submitted a PR for VFS-360. Find my summary in the comment as well. > - https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/38 > > Could you please review the changes? > > Thanks in advance, > > Woonsan > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Woonsan Ko <woon...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Bernd, > > > > Thanks for your remarks. Please see my comments inline below. > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net> > > wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I am for http4. In the begining it wont be maped in the StandardManager > >> but can be changed later on. > > Sounds good to me. > > > >> > >> I do wonder if we can get rid of a Special https Provider and have only > >> one (http4) which can handle both Kinds of URLs… not quite sure, what do > >> you think? > > From user's perspective, it seems better to keep 'https' separately > > from 'http'. 'http4s' and 'http4' accordingly. > > We can possibly consider nesting or adding somethings in > > configuration, for example to allow > > 'http4://www.example.com/index.html', > > 'http4:http://www.example.com/index.html' (equivalent to the first) or > > 'http4:https://www.example.com/index.html. But that doesn't seem to > > make anything more convenient than simply allowing either > > 'http4://www.example.com/index.html' or > > 'http4s://www.example.com/index.html'. > > So, I'm personally inclined to keep the existing pattern to have > > separate providers. > > > >> > >> Besides that, I wonder if we also (only?) should consider the new JDK > >> httpclient api? > > As I'm trying to scratch my own itch, I'd opt for providing a solution > > with HttpComponents HttpClient v4 first. ;-) Also, it's very matured > > and well-accepted, comparing with the new JDK HttpClient. > > I'm open to a possibility in the near future for a new separate > > provider, possibly called 'jdkhttp' with JDK HttpClient module. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Woonsan > > > >> > >> Gruss > >> Bernd > >> > >> -- > >> http://bernd.eckenfels.net > >> > >> Von: Woonsan Ko > >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. August 2018 18:35 > >> An: Commons Developers List > >> Betreff: [vfs] new http4 provider, not replace http? > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm trying to contribute for VFS-360. What a nice ticket number! > >> After a brief look, I'm considering to add a new provider in a > >> separate package, 'http4' (based on HttpComponents HttpClient), > >> keeping the old one, 'http' (based on the old Commons HttpClient), > >> as-is. The reason is that I don't want to break any public methods of > >> the http provider package in v2.x range. > >> > >> BTW, Apache Camel has a similar concept: http component with v3 and > >> http4 component with v4. [1] > >> A difference is we need one more equivalent to the old 'https', like > >> 'http4s'. It sounds a bit weird though. > >> > >> Any insights? > >> > >> Woonsan > >> > >> [1] http://camel.apache.org/components.html > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
