Tobias, If you look at the code in the sandbox [*], the notion of a default client has been removed. Having global static default instances is problematic. Http Clients are lightweight, easy to configure and pass around, if that is what you want.
-Chris. [*] hg clone http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/sandbox; cd sandbox bash common/bin/hgforest.sh update http-client-branch On 21/11/16 11:28, Tobias Thierer wrote:
Replying to my own first email in this thread to add another question / concern about flexibility of the HTTP Client API: Have you considered offering applications a way to globally replace the HTTP Client implementation with their own (e.g. via a method HttpClient.setDefault() to go with the existing method HttpClient.getDefault())? This feature seems to currently be missing from the API while even the old HttpURLConnection API supported this (via URL.setURLStreamHandlerFactory() <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/net/URL.html#setURLStreamHandlerFactory-java.net.URLStreamHandlerFactory->). I'm aware that such global (process-wide) configuration options have disadvantages as well, but it would be consistent with other swappable Java APIs/SPIs such as SSLSocketFactory, XML parsers, CookieHandler, etc. The advantage would be that applications / application frameworks could swap out the HttpClient implementation used by lower level libraries / applications that they're bundling in binary form - e.g. to globally provide a fake implementation to use during testing, instrument HTTP Client usage (e.g. log all URLs accessed or count the number of bytes transferred), to adhere to requirements in some corporate networks, or to otherwise decouple the version/implementation of the HTTP Client from the platform / OpenJDK version. What's your view? Tobias On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Tobias Thierer <tobi...@google.com <mailto:tobi...@google.com>> wrote: Hi Michael and others - Thanks for publishing the latest HTTP client API docs <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/httpclient/api/>(already slightly outdated again), as well as for publishing the current draft code in the sandbox repository! Below is some concrete feedback, questions and brainstorming on how to (a) increase the usefulness or (b) decrease the semantic weight of the API. Note that most of this is driven only by inspection of the API and some brief exploration of the implementation code, not (yet) by a substantial effort to write proof of concept client applications. I’d love if I could help make this API as useful to applications as possible, so I’d appreciate your feedback on how I can best do that and what the principles were that guided your design choices. 1.) The HttpRequest.BodyProcessor <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/httpclient/api/java/net/http/HttpRequest.BodyProcessor.html>and HttpResponse.BodyProcessor <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/httpclient/api/java/net/http/HttpResponse.BodyProcessor.html>abstractions seem particularly hard to grasp / have a high semantics weight. * What purpose does the abstraction of a BodyProcessoraim to fulfill beyond what the (simpler) abstraction of a Bodycould be? o Instead of describing the abstraction as a “processor” of ByteBuffers / Java objects, wouldn’t it be simpler to say to say that request / response bodiesare ByteBuffer / Java object sources/ sinks? What is the advantage of the Publisher<ByteBuffer> / Subscriber<ByteBuffer> API over plain old InputStream / OutputStream based APIs? o The term “processor” and the description of “converting incoming buffers of data to some user-defined object type T” is especially confusing (increases the semantic weight of the abstraction) given that there is an implementation that discards all data <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/httpclient/api/java/net/http/HttpResponse.BodyProcessor.html#discard-U->(and its generic type is called Urather than T). A BodyProcessor that has no input but generates the digits of Pi is also conceivable. Perhaps call these BodySource / BodySink, ByteBufferPublisher / ByteBufferSubscriber, or just Body? o The fact that you felt the need to introduce an abstraction HttpResponse.BodyHandler whose name is similar to but whose semantics are different from HttpResponse.BodyProcessor is another indication that these concepts could be clarified and named better. o To explore how well the abstractions “fit”, I played with some draft code implementing the API on top of another one; one thing I found particularly challenging was the control flow progression: HttpClient.send(request, bodyHandler) -> bodyProcessor = bodyHandler.apply(); // called by the library -> bodyProcessor.onSubscribe() / onNext() because it is push based and forces an application to relinquish control to the library rather than pulling data out of the library. Perhaps the Response BodyHandler abstraction could be eliminated altogether? For example, wouldn’t it be sufficient to abort downloading the body once an application thread has a chance to look at the Response object? Perhaps once a buffer is full, the download of the further response body could be delayed until a client asks for it? o What’s the purpose of HttpRequest.bodyProcessor()’s return type being an Optional<BodyProcessor> (rather than BodyProcessor)? Why can’t this default to an empty body? o Naming inconsistency: HttpRequest.BodyProcessor.fromFile() vs. HttpResponse.BodyProcessor.asFile(). How about calling all of these of(), or alternatively renaming asFile() -> toFile() or toPath()? o asByteArrayConsumer(Consumer<Optional<byte[]>> consumer): Why is this an Optional? What logic decides whether an empty response body will be represented as a present byte[0] or an absent value? 2.) HttpHeaders: I love that there is a type for this abstraction! But: * Why is the type an interface rather than a concrete, final class? Since this is a pure value type, there doesn’t seem to be much point in allowing alternative implementations? * The documentation should probably specify what the methods do when nameis not valid (according to RFC 7230 section 3.2?), or is null. * Do the methods other than map() really pull their weight (provide enough value relative to the semantic API weight that they introduce)? o firstValueAsLong() looks particularly suspect: why would anyone care particularly about long values? Especiallysince the current implementation seems to throw NumberFormatException rather than returning an empty Optional? 3.) Redirect * Stupid question: Should Redirect.SAME_PROTOCOL be called SAME_SCHEME (“scheme” is what the “http” part is called in a URL)? I’m not sure which one is better. * I haven’t made up my mind about whether the existing choices are the right ones / sufficient. Perhaps if this class used the typesafe enum pattern from Effective Java 1st edition rather than being an actual enum, the API would maintain the option in a future version to allow client-configured Redirect policies, allowing Redirect for URLs as long as they are within the same host/domain? 4.) HttpClient.Version: * Why does a HttpClient need to commit to using one HTTP version or the other? What if an application wants to use HTTP/2 for those servers that support it, but fall back to HTTP/1.1 for those that don’t? 5.) CookieManager * Is there a common interface we could add without making the API much more complex to allow us both RFC 2965 (outdated, implemented by CookieManager) and RFC 6265 (new, real world, actually used) cookies? Needs prototyping. I think it’s likely we’ll be able to do something similar to OkHttp’s CookieJar <https://square.github.io/okhttp/3.x/okhttp/okhttp3/CookieJar.html>which can be adapted to RFC 2965 - not 100%, but close enough that most implementations of CookieManager could be reused by the new HTTP API, while still taking advantage of RFC 6265 cookies. 6.) HttpClient.Executor * The documentation isn’t very clear about what tasks run on this executor and how a client can control HTTP traffic through a custom Executor instance. What power does the current executor() API provide to clients? Perhaps it would be simpler to omit this API altogether until the correct API becomes clearer? Thanks! Tobias
