On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 06:38 -0500, Jon Moore wrote: > Yes, I'd be in favor of either one of these changes (removing or > reporting dynamically the right version). I'd probably lean towards > removing it if pressed to express an opinion. > > As I recall (although I don't have the code in front of me), the > CachingHttpClient sends a slightly different User-Agent, mentioning > the fact that the cache is present in the stack in the comment field. > I think this made sense originally, when it was really an add-on > module. However, since Oleg is re-wiring the "stack" for the default > client in 4.3, that may not be needed any more. > > It could just be that I'm remembering the comment in the Via header > the caching layer adds, though; in which case the caching client > wouldn't modify the User-Agent. > > Jon > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All: > > > > At the debug logging level I see: > > > > User-Agent: Apache-HttpClient/4.2.1 (java 1.5) > > > > But I am running on Java 6... so, Why is 1.5 hard coded? > > > > Could/Should we remove "(java 1.5)" or have it report the correct version? > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Gary > >
If my memory serves me well the original intention was to include a minimal JRE version a particular release is compatible with. I am fine with either dropping it or replacing with a dynamically generated JRE version requests are generated with. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
