On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 10:12 -0400, Daniel Kulp wrote: > On Sep 6, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 10:55 -0400, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Alessio Soldano <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> On 09/04/2012 09:03 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >>>> > >>>> That said, there is still a bit of work todo: > >>>> > >>>> 1) Proxy support - haven't looked into this at all yet. Hard for me to > >>>> test as well as I don't have any sort of proxy setup anywhere. I may > >>>> need to look into how to setup a simple proxy to dig into this. > >>> > >>> Not sure if this would be the best option for you, but some time ago I > >>> wrote some JBossWS tests related to http proxy configuration by using > >>> LittleProxy [1], perhaps it's convenient here too. > >>> > >>> [1] http://www.littleshoot.org/littleproxy/ > >> > >> Cool. I see they just started a vote for 0.5 so if I wait a day or three, > >> I can just start with the newer version. :-) > >> > >> Thanks for the pointer. > >> > >> Dan > >> > > > > I personally use Squid [1] running locally in non-daemon mode to test > > HttpClient against. It is one of the most widely used proxies around. > > > I was originally looking at this, but there is a big disadvantage: it's > external to the build. The nice thing about the littleproxy thing is in > your junit tests, you can pop up a proxy on any port, use it, bring it down, > etc… just like any other service we may be using. It would work on every > developers machine. > > Right now, we have ZERO coverage of the proxy support in CXF, even for the > HttpURLConnection based transport. With the little proxy thing, I'm hoping > to rectify that. That said, I don't think it provides all the various > possible proxy situations that squid can, but at this point, some tests are > better than none. :-) > >
This is certainly a very valid point. Actually we are in the same boat. Close to zero coverage of proxy code. And we have all the building blocks necessary to put together a full blown caching proxy. The trouble is that the _real_ troublemaker is never the proxy itself. In most cases proxies are almost transparent to the client. The real ugly b**ch is always a combination of HTTP proxy and authentication (either on the proxy or the target side), especially NTLM, which is not very easy to emulate. Oleg
