I'm +1 for sticking with 2.0. We can switch if we want to when they
have stabilized.
Cheers,
Nick
On Mar 15, 2004, at 10:43 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
-----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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
