Am 2015-11-21 um 19:52 schrieb Gary Gregory:
+1.
I would not mind using Java 8 too.
Believe that is too early. We are using a company-wide, Eclipse
RCP-based product which is on Eclipse 3.4/3.6 and still HttpClient 3.x.
I highly doubt that the dev team will jump on e4 and Java 8 features.
Java 7 is a good base line.
Michael
Gary
On Nov 21, 2015 9:03 AM, "Oleg Kalnichevski" <[email protected]> wrote:
Folks
I moved code to org.apache.hc.core5 namespace as the first step.
Now I would like to move things around in order to make the package
structure more consistent, reduce circular dependencies between packages
and prepare for messaging code separation into HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2
compliant implementations.
However, more importantly I would like to fold httpcore-nio into
httpcore. Separation into two modules made sense in 2005 but hardly
makes any sense today in 2015.
Please let me know if you have any objections to that.
Oleg
On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 12:32 +0100, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
Folks
I would like to start working on the first alpha releases of HC 5.0.
There is one issue that still needs to be discussed though before I can
proceed. We need to decide on how we intent to maintain compatibility
with HC 4.x. It is pretty clear that maintaining full compatibility is
unrealistic and probably counter-productive. HC 5.0 is likely to have
different APIs especially once HTTP/2 transport is implemented.
A pragmatic approach could be to make HC 5.0 and HC 4.x deployable
within the same class loader context (so called co-location). This is
what Apache Commons do with their major releases. We should do
likewise.
Effectively co-location is about moving major releases to a new package
space like org.apache.commons.lang3, org.apache.commons.lang4, etc. I
think we should adopt a compatible scheme. The trouble is that when the
project was started in 2005 the choice of 'org.apache.http' was pretty
natural and in line with Jakarta practices (anyone here still remembers
Apache Jakarta?). Now it can be seen as too presumptuous. This would be
a good opportunity to fix that.
What would be a better name space for the project in your opinion?
org.apache.http<n>
org.apache.http.hc<n>
org.apache.hc<n>.http
where <n> is a major release version
Something else? Any thoughts or preferences?
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
