Re: Undertow uri syntax

[Zoran Regvart]

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Nicola Ferraro  wrote:
> +1 to the idea of swapping http components using configuration (as long
> term solution).
> Personally, I'd prefer writing "https://www.google.com;, rather than
> "http4s://www.google.com", or "undertow://www.google.com?scheme=https"...

me too, but I think Lucas suggestion allows both, whereas currently
undertow only allows the former, so win-win :)

zoran
-- 
Zoran Regvart

Re: Undertow uri syntax

[Nicola Ferraro]

+1 to the idea of swapping http components using configuration (as long
term solution).
Personally, I'd prefer writing "https://www.google.com;, rather than
"http4s://www.google.com", or "undertow://www.google.com?scheme=https"...

Speaking of undertow, I have also this one: CAMEL-10565.. 1 io thread per
core is (still) not a reasonable default in a docker container..

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Claus Ibsen  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Also it would be good to make it easy to configure the connection
> timeout on the undertow producer.
>
> It should ideally be a option: connectionTimeout you can set on the
> endpoint and/or component.
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Claus Ibsen 
> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > And speaking of undertow there is also this one which would be nice to
> > make possible
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-11046
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Luca Burgazzoli 
> wrote:
> >> Great !
> >>
> >> I would be really nice if we can swap http component without much
> >> changes, for service call + spring-boot this would be lovely as one
> >> can swap the component via spring's properties and no code change.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Luca Burgazzoli
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Zoran Regvart 
> wrote:
> >>> Hi Luca,
> >>> yes, I think that would be a good idea. IMHO all HTTP components
> >>> should behave similarly, this helps users to migrate between them as
> >>> they see fit. We should probably push as much of the code into
> >>> camel-http-common where it makes sense,
> >>>
> >>> zoran
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Luca Burgazzoli <
> lburgazz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Hello,
> 
>  I've recently worked on some examples related to the service-call eip
>  using undertow as underlying component to see how complex is to go
>  beyond the defaults and it worked nice, the only downside is that you
>  cannot simply swap the component as undertow expect also the protocol
>  (http/https) to be provided in the uri syntax:
> 
>  undertow:http://hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]
> 
>  When using component like camel-http or camel-http4 the scheme is not
>  needed which make the integration with the service-call eip much
>  simpler.
> 
>  So I'm wondering if it could make sense to let camel-undertow also to
>  handle uri like:
> 
>  undertow:hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]
> 
>  where:
> 
>  - by default the scheme is http
>  - https can be derived by the port number or presence of the ssl
> options
>  - of course one can set the full uri as today
> 
>  As I do not know camel-undertow in depth I may have missed something
>  so any feedback would be appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
>  ---
>  Luca Burgazzoli
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Zoran Regvart
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Claus Ibsen
> > -
> > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -
> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
>

Re: Undertow uri syntax

[Claus Ibsen]

Hi

Also it would be good to make it easy to configure the connection
timeout on the undertow producer.

It should ideally be a option: connectionTimeout you can set on the
endpoint and/or component.

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Claus Ibsen  wrote:
> Hi
>
> And speaking of undertow there is also this one which would be nice to
> make possible
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-11046
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Luca Burgazzoli  
> wrote:
>> Great !
>>
>> I would be really nice if we can swap http component without much
>> changes, for service call + spring-boot this would be lovely as one
>> can swap the component via spring's properties and no code change.
>>
>> ---
>> Luca Burgazzoli
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Zoran Regvart  wrote:
>>> Hi Luca,
>>> yes, I think that would be a good idea. IMHO all HTTP components
>>> should behave similarly, this helps users to migrate between them as
>>> they see fit. We should probably push as much of the code into
>>> camel-http-common where it makes sense,
>>>
>>> zoran
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Luca Burgazzoli  
>>> wrote:
 Hello,

 I've recently worked on some examples related to the service-call eip
 using undertow as underlying component to see how complex is to go
 beyond the defaults and it worked nice, the only downside is that you
 cannot simply swap the component as undertow expect also the protocol
 (http/https) to be provided in the uri syntax:

 undertow:http://hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]

 When using component like camel-http or camel-http4 the scheme is not
 needed which make the integration with the service-call eip much
 simpler.

 So I'm wondering if it could make sense to let camel-undertow also to
 handle uri like:

 undertow:hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]

 where:

 - by default the scheme is http
 - https can be derived by the port number or presence of the ssl options
 - of course one can set the full uri as today

 As I do not know camel-undertow in depth I may have missed something
 so any feedback would be appreciated.



 ---
 Luca Burgazzoli
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Zoran Regvart
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -
> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2



-- 
Claus Ibsen
-
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2

Re: Undertow uri syntax

[Claus Ibsen]

Hi

And speaking of undertow there is also this one which would be nice to
make possible
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-11046

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Luca Burgazzoli  wrote:
> Great !
>
> I would be really nice if we can swap http component without much
> changes, for service call + spring-boot this would be lovely as one
> can swap the component via spring's properties and no code change.
>
> ---
> Luca Burgazzoli
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Zoran Regvart  wrote:
>> Hi Luca,
>> yes, I think that would be a good idea. IMHO all HTTP components
>> should behave similarly, this helps users to migrate between them as
>> they see fit. We should probably push as much of the code into
>> camel-http-common where it makes sense,
>>
>> zoran
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Luca Burgazzoli  
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I've recently worked on some examples related to the service-call eip
>>> using undertow as underlying component to see how complex is to go
>>> beyond the defaults and it worked nice, the only downside is that you
>>> cannot simply swap the component as undertow expect also the protocol
>>> (http/https) to be provided in the uri syntax:
>>>
>>> undertow:http://hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]
>>>
>>> When using component like camel-http or camel-http4 the scheme is not
>>> needed which make the integration with the service-call eip much
>>> simpler.
>>>
>>> So I'm wondering if it could make sense to let camel-undertow also to
>>> handle uri like:
>>>
>>> undertow:hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]
>>>
>>> where:
>>>
>>> - by default the scheme is http
>>> - https can be derived by the port number or presence of the ssl options
>>> - of course one can set the full uri as today
>>>
>>> As I do not know camel-undertow in depth I may have missed something
>>> so any feedback would be appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Luca Burgazzoli
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Zoran Regvart



-- 
Claus Ibsen
-
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2

Re: Undertow uri syntax

[Luca Burgazzoli]

Great !

I would be really nice if we can swap http component without much
changes, for service call + spring-boot this would be lovely as one
can swap the component via spring's properties and no code change.

---
Luca Burgazzoli


On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Zoran Regvart  wrote:
> Hi Luca,
> yes, I think that would be a good idea. IMHO all HTTP components
> should behave similarly, this helps users to migrate between them as
> they see fit. We should probably push as much of the code into
> camel-http-common where it makes sense,
>
> zoran
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Luca Burgazzoli  
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've recently worked on some examples related to the service-call eip
>> using undertow as underlying component to see how complex is to go
>> beyond the defaults and it worked nice, the only downside is that you
>> cannot simply swap the component as undertow expect also the protocol
>> (http/https) to be provided in the uri syntax:
>>
>> undertow:http://hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]
>>
>> When using component like camel-http or camel-http4 the scheme is not
>> needed which make the integration with the service-call eip much
>> simpler.
>>
>> So I'm wondering if it could make sense to let camel-undertow also to
>> handle uri like:
>>
>> undertow:hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]
>>
>> where:
>>
>> - by default the scheme is http
>> - https can be derived by the port number or presence of the ssl options
>> - of course one can set the full uri as today
>>
>> As I do not know camel-undertow in depth I may have missed something
>> so any feedback would be appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Luca Burgazzoli
>
>
>
> --
> Zoran Regvart

Re: Undertow uri syntax

[Claus Ibsen]

Hi

Yeah that would be great. There is a ticket about aligning undertow
with camel-http-common and Zoran started working on that a while back.

If that is too much work we could add a temporary improvement so
camel-undertow can default to use http scheme if omitted.


On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Luca Burgazzoli  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've recently worked on some examples related to the service-call eip
> using undertow as underlying component to see how complex is to go
> beyond the defaults and it worked nice, the only downside is that you
> cannot simply swap the component as undertow expect also the protocol
> (http/https) to be provided in the uri syntax:
>
> undertow:http://hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]
>
> When using component like camel-http or camel-http4 the scheme is not
> needed which make the integration with the service-call eip much
> simpler.
>
> So I'm wondering if it could make sense to let camel-undertow also to
> handle uri like:
>
> undertow:hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]
>
> where:
>
> - by default the scheme is http
> - https can be derived by the port number or presence of the ssl options
> - of course one can set the full uri as today
>
> As I do not know camel-undertow in depth I may have missed something
> so any feedback would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> ---
> Luca Burgazzoli



-- 
Claus Ibsen
-
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2

Re: Undertow uri syntax

[Zoran Regvart]

Hi Luca,
yes, I think that would be a good idea. IMHO all HTTP components
should behave similarly, this helps users to migrate between them as
they see fit. We should probably push as much of the code into
camel-http-common where it makes sense,

zoran

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Luca Burgazzoli  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've recently worked on some examples related to the service-call eip
> using undertow as underlying component to see how complex is to go
> beyond the defaults and it worked nice, the only downside is that you
> cannot simply swap the component as undertow expect also the protocol
> (http/https) to be provided in the uri syntax:
>
> undertow:http://hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]
>
> When using component like camel-http or camel-http4 the scheme is not
> needed which make the integration with the service-call eip much
> simpler.
>
> So I'm wondering if it could make sense to let camel-undertow also to
> handle uri like:
>
> undertow:hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]
>
> where:
>
> - by default the scheme is http
> - https can be derived by the port number or presence of the ssl options
> - of course one can set the full uri as today
>
> As I do not know camel-undertow in depth I may have missed something
> so any feedback would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> ---
> Luca Burgazzoli



-- 
Zoran Regvart

Undertow uri syntax

[Luca Burgazzoli]

Hello,

I've recently worked on some examples related to the service-call eip
using undertow as underlying component to see how complex is to go
beyond the defaults and it worked nice, the only downside is that you
cannot simply swap the component as undertow expect also the protocol
(http/https) to be provided in the uri syntax:

undertow:http://hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]

When using component like camel-http or camel-http4 the scheme is not
needed which make the integration with the service-call eip much
simpler.

So I'm wondering if it could make sense to let camel-undertow also to
handle uri like:

undertow:hostname[:port][/resourceUri][?options]

where:

- by default the scheme is http
- https can be derived by the port number or presence of the ssl options
- of course one can set the full uri as today

As I do not know camel-undertow in depth I may have missed something
so any feedback would be appreciated.



---
Luca Burgazzoli