David M. Lloyd wrote:
So basically there's been a number of suggestions as to what to name
these things. Here are the two options:
Name from pastebin Option 1 Option 2
--------------------- -------------------- ----------------------
AsyncHttpClient HttpClientFactory HttpClient
HttpRequestor HttpClient HttpConnector
HttpFuture HttpFuture HttpFuture
Going with Option 1, I took a look at what the current MINA AHC would
look like with this API - the result is at
http://www.laurinolli.fi/~tazle/http-client-trivial-implementation.patch
It isn't exactly like current AHC (it's not possible to close
connections at the moment), but pretty close. The AHC tests run, for
example.
This implementation gets rid of the resource leaks caused by constantly
creating and not disposing NioSocketConnectors, but does not even try to
address pipelining or large requests.
Of course nothing is decided until everyone has had a chance to weigh in.
Indeed - I don't particularly like the code I wrote, but I think it
needed to be written in order to see what hoops there were to jump
through. I think the HttpHandler and HttpFuture interfaces are bad,
especially the way IoHandler events are converted into
HttpFuture/HttpHandler events. HttpClient on the other hand seems like
an interface we should have. It seems ideal for hiding the complexity of
possible pipelining or request pooling.
