> > I'd like us to vote on releasing version 1.0 of the HTTP Client
component.
>
> I'm +1 on establishing a release plan for httpclient and moving quickly to
> execute it, but I think I'm -0 for releasing it as it stands (with or
> without log4j support/dependencies), for the following reasons:
>
> a) Over the past couple of weeks there have been several significant fixes
> implemented--either correcting the behavior or clarifying the proper
> behavior, depending upon which way you look at it--including the behavior
of
> query-string versus input parameters, the use of SSL support, the behavior
> of sessions, etc. I wonder what else might be lurking out there, and I
> suspect we haven't cleanly and clearly specified the "contract" of
> httpclient and how it should behave.
Just in case, I'm actually using it for the WebDAV command line client.
This client has been tested at an interoperability event against a large
variety of HTTP / WebDAV servers (http://www.webdav.org/other/interop.html).
It worked well, so it appears that if there are some issues, there are not
critical issues which would make us delay a release.
> b) On a related note, there is literally no documentation for httpclient
> outside of the java code itself, and what we see there is fairly sparse.
I
> would argue that httpclient is complicated enough to warrant some decent
> documentation in order to maintain a standard of quality. I think this
> applies to both end-user documentation and specifications of the proper
> (expected) behavior for development.
Good idea.
However :
- None of the other components have any docs, except Cactus
- I really don't have time to do it; since nobody has volunteered to do it
(and you didn't), I assume it just won't happen, and that in one or two
weeks, we'll be in the exact same situation
Remy
