+1 to the idea of swapping http components using configuration (as long term solution). Personally, I'd prefer writing "https://www.google.com";, rather than "http4s://www.google.com", or "undertow://www.google.com?scheme=https"...
Speaking of undertow, I have also this one: CAMEL-10565.. 1 io thread per core is (still) not a reasonable default in a docker container.. On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > Also it would be good to make it easy to configure the connection > timeout on the undertow producer. > > It should ideally be a option: connectionTimeout you can set on the > endpoint and/or component. > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi > > > > And speaking of undertow there is also this one which would be nice to > > make possible > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-11046 > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Luca Burgazzoli <lburgazz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > Claus Ibsen > > ----------------- > > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus > > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2 > > > > -- > Claus Ibsen > ----------------- > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2 >
