Hi Gary, On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:54 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Woonsan, > > I've applied the patch as is and all it well. Thank you!
Thank you very much! > > Food for thought: We should also consider HttpClient *5* which just > released its second beta (I am helping there as well.) > > If you feel like adding another provider for HttpClient 5 Beta 2 (it is in > a different package as the API is different), that would give us the most > flexibility perhaps. I do. I'll try it out and hopefully submit a pull request with a new JIRA ticket some day. > > At some point in the future we can decide which provide would be mapped to > "http" and "https". > > To that end, I wonder if the current "http" provider based on HttpClient 3 > should be repackaged as "http3" so that we can create the underlying toggle > and test it. It seems already possible IIUC: - StandardFileSystemManager's parsing logic on providers.xml allows a provider to register multiple schemes. For example, JarFileProvider has already registered itself with jar, jar, ear, etc. - So, we may set the schemes for the current default HttpFileProvider (HTTPClient3 based) to both "http3" and "http". "http3s" and "https" for the corresponding one accordingly. - At some moment later, when deciding which one to be the default "http" or "https" provider, we can simply change the providers.xml. I will submit another simple PR to set the default ones to [ "http3", "http" ] and [ "http3s", "https" ] soon. Am I in the right track? Woonsan > > Thoughts? > > Gary > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:42 PM Woonsan Ko <woon...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Could someone please review my PR? > > - https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/38 > > > > Woonsan > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 9:11 AM Woonsan Ko <woon...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bernd / Experts, > > > > > > I've submitted a PR for VFS-360. Find my summary in the comment as well. > > > - https://github.com/apache/commons-vfs/pull/38 > > > > > > Could you please review the changes? > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > > > Woonsan > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Woonsan Ko <woon...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Bernd, > > > > > > > > Thanks for your remarks. Please see my comments inline below. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Bernd Eckenfels < > > e...@zusammenkunft.net> wrote: > > > >> Hello, > > > >> > > > >> I am for http4. In the begining it wont be maped in the > > StandardManager but can be changed later on. > > > > Sounds good to me. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> I do wonder if we can get rid of a Special https Provider and have > > only one (http4) which can handle both Kinds of URLs… not quite sure, what > > do you think? > > > > From user's perspective, it seems better to keep 'https' separately > > > > from 'http'. 'http4s' and 'http4' accordingly. > > > > We can possibly consider nesting or adding somethings in > > > > configuration, for example to allow > > > > 'http4://www.example.com/index.html', > > > > 'http4:http://www.example.com/index.html' (equivalent to the first) or > > > > 'http4:https://www.example.com/index.html. But that doesn't seem to > > > > make anything more convenient than simply allowing either > > > > 'http4://www.example.com/index.html' or > > > > 'http4s://www.example.com/index.html'. > > > > So, I'm personally inclined to keep the existing pattern to have > > > > separate providers. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Besides that, I wonder if we also (only?) should consider the new JDK > > httpclient api? > > > > As I'm trying to scratch my own itch, I'd opt for providing a solution > > > > with HttpComponents HttpClient v4 first. ;-) Also, it's very matured > > > > and well-accepted, comparing with the new JDK HttpClient. > > > > I'm open to a possibility in the near future for a new separate > > > > provider, possibly called 'jdkhttp' with JDK HttpClient module. > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > Woonsan > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Gruss > > > >> Bernd > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> http://bernd.eckenfels.net > > > >> > > > >> Von: Woonsan Ko > > > >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. August 2018 18:35 > > > >> An: Commons Developers List > > > >> Betreff: [vfs] new http4 provider, not replace http? > > > >> > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> I'm trying to contribute for VFS-360. What a nice ticket number! > > > >> After a brief look, I'm considering to add a new provider in a > > > >> separate package, 'http4' (based on HttpComponents HttpClient), > > > >> keeping the old one, 'http' (based on the old Commons HttpClient), > > > >> as-is. The reason is that I don't want to break any public methods of > > > >> the http provider package in v2.x range. > > > >> > > > >> BTW, Apache Camel has a similar concept: http component with v3 and > > > >> http4 component with v4. [1] > > > >> A difference is we need one more equivalent to the old 'https', like > > > >> 'http4s'. It sounds a bit weird though. > > > >> > > > >> Any insights? > > > >> > > > >> Woonsan > > > >> > > > >> [1] http://camel.apache.org/components.html > > > >> > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > >> > > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
