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 <zo...@regvart.com> 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
