Hello André-John,
if you continue to create a new HTTP Client in each thread,
there is no point in using the multi threaded connection
manager. That makes sense only if several threads share
the same HTTP Client. That's more effort than just
changing a single line of code.
As Odi pointed out,
Roland Weber wrote:
As Odi pointed out, you can save the overhead of establishing
a new connection for each request. How much that is depends
on your infrastructure: network latency, authentication overhead,...
Also this means, for a very special applications you can even get more
speed or save
As Odi pointed out, you can save the overhead of establishing
a new connection for each request. How much that is depends
on your infrastructure: network latency, authentication overhead,...
I've recently been doing some profiling work and was surprised to discover
that instantiating
Adrian Sutton wrote:
I've recently been doing some profiling work and was surprised to discover
that instantiating HttpClient is actually a reasonably expensive operation.
Sounds interesting! Do you know what the reason is? Where is all that
time spent? I mean, HttpClient doesn't do that
Knowing the speed with which corporate legal departments can move, I
would hope for keeping the old license for the 2.0 release.
I think it would be unfair/surprising for clients to discover that they
would have to do a legal an unexpected legal review just for the sake of
eliminating a few
Hey, sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I'm
using httpclient to POST data to an https
connection. I get an access denied exception,
one I have already posted to this group. But my
question is now, as I
look at the stack trace, what part of it do I use
to determine what to
put in the codeBase
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10794.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Eric,
I think you've made a very good point. Besides, as far as I understand
we can still stick to the version 1.1 if we manage to put the final
release together before the end of the month:
...
The Apache License, version 2.0, was approved for use by Apache projects
as of January 21, 2004, with
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26500.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26500.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
10 matches
Mail list logo
