I reply to you both Ortwin and Roland: Thank you for your precisions. I didn't get that the Http-Client component can be view as a do everything component. As you say, to get a minimalist size I would better build a specialized library from httpclient, which cut the parts I don't care.
> > Indeed, the library needed are pretty heavy today for a pure text, > > cookie-free, proxy-free, auth-free usage of HttpClient. > > The term "heavy" is apparently very ambiguous. You are calling a roughly > 300KB library heavy. That even fits on a floppy disk four times. Are you > on an embedded system or downloading on an extremely slow line that you > have to worry about size? Lol, indeed I'm thinking about embedded system. A 300 kb library is not heavy for a server side. Thanks again Benjamin 2005/7/8, Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Benjamin Chevillon wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I just discovered the wiki page about API 4.0 redesign. I appreciate > > the clear classification and dependencies scheme. > > In my application I use HttpClient for Http pure text call in a LAN. > > So I hoped the API 4.0 would permit that one can have a very simple > > Http Client (with MultiThreaded capabilities), without dependencies to > > commons-codec, or http-cookie or http-auth (or proxy, or else). > > Indeed as the new architecture is based on many interfaces it should not > be difficult to make such a "minimal" client. > > > Indeed, the library needed are pretty heavy today for a pure text, > > cookie-free, proxy-free, auth-free usage of HttpClient. > > The term "heavy" is apparently very ambiguous. You are calling a roughly > 300KB library heavy. That even fits on a floppy disk four times. Are you > on an embedded system or downloading on an extremely slow line that you > have to worry about size? > > > Maybe I'm > > wrong or I misunderstood the wiki page, but this seems not to be the > > case for 4.0. > > Minimal package size was never a design goal for 4.0. I doubt that the > final HttpClient will be like a plug-in system where you could just > leave away the cookie or the auth packages. Those packages were merely > designed to encapsulate certain functionality. However it will be easy > to strip out cookie or auth support completely if that is desired. But > why would you want to use HttpClient then anyway? You can just as well > use HttpUrlConnection. > > > Does my hope is shared by others? Or maybe this is not > > the today's goal? > > Another personal statement: I dislike the idea of a removing central > features from the client. HTTP is defined in standards. Those standards > define what a client is. Everything else is not a HTTP client. Removing > everything but the features you need will leave you with a proprietary > protocol based on HTTP. So don't be surprised if implications of such a > proprietary protocol surface. > > Ortwin Glück > > > > Regards, > > > > Benjamin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
