Maybe we should let camel-netty-http support HTTP 1.0 out of box. Current it just use the HTTP 1.1 by default.
-- Willem Jiang Red Hat, Inc. Web: http://www.redhat.com Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/) (English) http://jnn.iteye.com (http://jnn.javaeye.com/) (Chinese) Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Friday, November 8, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Aki Yoshida wrote: > Hi Willem, > I agree with you that netty should use the path. > but what is the benefit of using the full url? I guess the http 1.1 > was changed to allow the full url so that the proxy doesn't need to > rewrite the request, could it be? in that case, that will be another > argument for the client to be actually using the path instead of the > url in this case. > > regards, aki > > > > > 2013/11/7 Willem jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com > (mailto:willem.ji...@gmail.com)>: > > Hi team, > > > > I just found NettyHttpProducer sets the Request URI with the absoluteURI > > like > > > > GET http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TheProject.html. > > > > But I found HttpClient set the Request URI with absolutePath like > > > > GET /pub/WWW/TheProject.html > > Host: www.w3.org (http://www.w3.org) > > > > From the HTTP1.1 RFC[1], these two Request URI are all OK. But for my > > experience it could be better if NettyHttpProducer can just set the Request > > URI with absolutePath. > > In this way, the request can be proxied without changing anything. Such as > > I can use TCPMonitor the check the request and response between the > > NettyHttpProducer and back end server without changing anything. > > > > Any thought? > > > > [1]http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec5.html > > -- > > Willem Jiang > > > > Red Hat, Inc. > > Web: http://www.redhat.com > > Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/) > > (English) > > http://jnn.iteye.com (http://jnn.javaeye.com/) (Chinese) > > Twitter: willemjiang > > Weibo: 姜宁willem >
