Hi Luca, yes, I think that would be a good idea. IMHO all HTTP components should behave similarly, this helps users to migrate between them as they see fit. We should probably push as much of the code into camel-http-common where it makes sense,
zoran On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Luca Burgazzoli <lburgazz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I've recently worked on some examples related to the service-call eip > using undertow as underlying component to see how complex is to go > beyond the defaults and it worked nice, the only downside is that you > cannot simply swap the component as undertow expect also the protocol > (http/https) to be provided in the uri syntax: > > undertow:http://hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options] > > When using component like camel-http or camel-http4 the scheme is not > needed which make the integration with the service-call eip much > simpler. > > So I'm wondering if it could make sense to let camel-undertow also to > handle uri like: > > undertow:hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options] > > where: > > - by default the scheme is http > - https can be derived by the port number or presence of the ssl options > - of course one can set the full uri as today > > As I do not know camel-undertow in depth I may have missed something > so any feedback would be appreciated. > > > > --- > Luca Burgazzoli -- Zoran Regvart
