Is there a reason for such strict either or approach? Possibly because it provides two ways to achieve the same goal?
The reason I ask is because my situation is one in which the HttpClient is customized to remove the Accept-Encoding: gzip header added to all requests because the decoderFactories member set contains the GZIPContentDecoder Factory. This customization cannot be achieved by using the uri parameters. A new instance of this custom HttpClient is instantiated in multiple routes, and each instance may want to have its own configurations. Also HttpClient.XXX configurations can be passed in by users at runtime, where the custom HttpClient is a bean that is not modifiable by the user. Possibly other users have a similar situation in which it would be preferable to have a baselined custom instance of the HttpClient that accepts HttpClient.XXX configurations. Alternatively if the decoderFactories member was configurable via the Jetty HttpClient or the CamelHttpClient or the CamelHttpClient9 this would not be necessary. Unfortunately the Jetty HttpClient is part of the Jetty project not Camel, and the CamelHttpClient and therefore the CamelHttpClient9 extend the Jetty 8 HttpClient where this is not applicable. Any thoughts on this issue would be appreciated. -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Allow-httpClient-XXX-configuration-to-be-applied-to-custom-HttpClient-tp5779966p5780109.html Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
