Thanks Ian, I just wanted to make sure we were not chasing new shiny, or trading one set of issues for another.
@purplecabbage risingj.com On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@google.com> wrote: > Using OkHttp rather than the built-in Android HTTP stack gives us a number > of benefits: > > - Better control over edge-case error conditions (See CB-2293, which was > one of the primary motivators) > - A consistent, up-to-date http stack across all Android devices, which > will allow us to remove a lot of workarounds in our code, which only exist > because of bugs in the OS's implementations. > - SPDY support -- at least in theory, I haven't tried it out yet (but it's > on my list of things to try this week) > > It's not *required* required -- we *could* continue to try to work around > the bugs in older devices, but there are some types of bug that just can't > be fixed at the application level; you need fix them at the HTTP level. > > Ian > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Why was this added? Is it required? > > > > @purplecabbage > > risingj.com > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I've updated our NOTICE file indicating that we're using OkHTTP as per > > > the Apache Licence. I think that's good enough, and I noticed the > > > headers were not touched, which is good. > > > > > > Basing it on this: https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html and > > > the AOSP Notice File: > > > > https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/av/+/jb-dev/NOTICE > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@google.com> > > > wrote: > > > > I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice ;) but OkHTTP is > > > > apache-licensed, as is Cordova, and I believe that the terms of the > > > Apache > > > > license allow us to embed it for distribution. > > > > > > > > There's probably someone in Apache who is far more qualified than I > to > > > say > > > > what we can and should do, though. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hey > > > >> > > > >> I saw that okhttp was added, but I don't know if including the > source > > > >> and as such re-distributing it this way is correct or not. Is there > > > >> someone around to clarify whether it's OK for us to use the library > in > > > >> this way in the project or not, or whether we have to do what we do > > > >> with commons-codec? > > > >> > > > >> Anyone know the correct answer? > > > >> > > > >> Joe > > > >> > > > > > >
