Do we have any existing integration test coverage for socket and connection timeouts? I only see mock-based unit tests.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 1:04 PM Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2025-04-24 at 13:04 -0700, Ryan Schmitt wrote: > > > UDS looks like a route / connection property, not a request one. So > > > RequestConfig would likely be a bad choice. ConnectionConfig would > > > make > > > a better choice in my option. Better yet, it could be a method, say > > > #useUnixSocket, in the `PoolingHttpClientConnectionManagerBuilder` > > > that > > > would make the connection manager use a special UDS based > > > `HttpClientConnectionOperator`. This would be pretty much > > > equivalent to > > > the `curl --unix-socket` option. > > > > I think that a Unix domain socket is conceptually a proxy: you're > > connecting to `localhost` but proxying the request through an IPC > > mechanism. And I think it's awkward to say that a route property is > > not a request property for two reasons: > > > > 1. There is currently a `proxy` field defined on `RequestConfig` > > (admittedly deprecated) > > 2. The `HttpRoutePlanner` computes the route entirely from > > request-scoped information: the target, the HttpContext, and the > > HttpRequest itself. > > Hi Ryan > > You are right. The route for a request gets determined based on > properties of the request or some applicable defaults. > > I am fine with using `RequestConfig` to contain UDS properties as well. > In this case we should also un-deprecate the `proxy` property in > `RequestConfig` to be consistent. > > Oleg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org
