Hi Chris

As far as your first point is concerned, just bear with us for a short while. I am 
currently working on a patch that should address the problem. 

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17884
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17158

As far as your second point is concerned, it's a bit more complicated. HttpClient 
class has been designed to be capable of handling different hosts. However, you right 
about possibility of conflict between credentials belonging to different realms that 
happen to be sharing the same name. As far as I understand the authentication realms 
as defined in RFC2617 are not required to be unique. I am afraid it is a limitation we 
are supposed to live with. Alternatively we might consider redesigning HttpState class 
to include host name into credentials map keys. 

Oleg



-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Freitag, 21. M�rz 2003 15:59
To: Commons HttpClient Project
Subject: Using appropriate credentials and state with multiple hosts



Hi,

I'm using HttpClient 2.0 alpha 3, and am trying to find out how to work with
multiple hosts, sometimes with authentification, sometimes without,
sometimes with NTLM.  Some questions, hope should be easy to answer...

1.) Is there already some method to parse authentification headers to
extract the realm, or do I have to parse this myself (I've looked around a
bit, may have missed it) ?

2.) Do I need a separate HttpState per client per host?  From the javadocs,
it seems that if more than one host uses the same realm name, such as
"Private" (by coincidence), then I'm stuck, as HttpState can only store one
set of credentials for a given name...

Thanks,
Chris



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

Reply via email to