> -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 16 March 2004 00:28 > To: Cactus Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Following HttpClient 3.x or staying with HttpClient > 2.x? > > Am 15.03.2004 um 22:48 schrieb Vincent Massol: > > As you may have seen, there has been some gump failure emails for the > > past 2 weeks or so. I've tracked the problem to some change to > > HttpClient in CVS HEAD (v 3.x). It seems it was a regression. We were > > not using the canonical way to perform basic authentication. I've now > > just refactored our code to use the canonical way. > > > > However, there are 2 problems remaining: > > > > - HttpClient in HEAD depends on the Commons Codec jar. Thus we'll need > > to add this dependency if we wish to be compatible with HttpClient 3.x > > > > - v3.x of HttpClient will break several APIs and is not meant to be > > backward compatible with version 2.x. > > > > Question: what do we do? > > > > Solution 1: we continue depending on v2.x of HttpClient. We upgrade our > > Gump descriptor to use the "commons-httpclient-2.0-branch" projet. > > We'll > > need to decide later on whether we want to upgrade to v3.x (for example > > when v3.0 final is out). > > +1 > > > Solution 2: we try to follow HttpClient's progression, knowing that > > it'll be a bumpy ride. We also need to immediately add a dependency to > > commons-codec. > > > > My current feeling is that commons httpclient is some internal > > implementation of Cactus and does not bring much added value to Cactus > > users. Thus, I would prefer not to disturb Cactus users (like adding a > > dependency on commons-codec). Thus I would be more inclined to solution > > 2. Actually, in the best of the possible world, the JDK should provide > > commons HttpClient's features. +1 for solution 2 from me. > > > > What do you think? > > (Note that "+1 for solution 2" contradicts with the rest of what you've > written here, so I'm assuming you actually meant "+1 for solution 1"... > or maybe I've misunderstood)
oooops :-) Yes, I meant +1 for solution 1. > > I agree with you. Let's stick to the 2.0 branch of HttpClient. > > To be fair, the HttpClient team has always been very clear that the > next release would break compatibility with 2.0, so this is not a > surprise. Yes, true. -Vincent > > Cheers, > Chris > -- > Christopher Lenz > /=/ cmlenz at gmx.de > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
