Hi, I've seen other mention not to use CommonFactoryFinder, and that would be easy to avoid. Moving the interfaces HTTPClient and HTTPResponse into gt-http means that all the classes in the namespace org.geotools.data.ows must be taken into gt-http. It seems easy to implement this.
Initially I was thinking about moving all that only has to do with HTTP into the namespace org.geotools.http. It ended up being a too broad change. What do you all mean. Would it make sense to do such a refactoring? The classes I consider is: DelegateHTTPClient DelegateHTTPResponse HTTPClient HTTPResponse LoggingHTTPClient SimpleHttpClient Regards, Roar Brænden > 5. jan. 2021 kl. 21:55 skrev Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com>: > > Perfect, the proposal is starting to collect votes. > > I had one thing to discuss, use of CommonFactoryFinder? It would be great if > use of this module can be independent of main, this would require its own own > HTTPFactoryFinder or similar. > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 at 14:30, Roar Brænden <roar.brenden...@gmail.com > <mailto:roar.brenden...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Thanks, > > I think you've nailed the main goal by the proposal. I did some change to the > code example though. > > It would have been great to land this PR, and work with some of the bugs > regarding HTTPClient. > > Regards, > > Roar Brænden > > > >> 4. jan. 2021 kl. 21:49 skrev Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com >> <mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com>>: >> >> I outlined the proposal here >> https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/HTTPClient-Factory >> <https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/HTTPClient-Factory> >> >> I will ask for a review in tomorrow's meeting and trust we can get this done >> ahead of the next release. >> -- >> Jody Garnett >> >> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 16:15, Roar Brænden <roar.brenden...@gmail.com >> <mailto:roar.brenden...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm aware that you have a way of doing things, and that my approach wasn't >> in accordance with that. The history is that I worked with gt-tile-client >> this autumn and tried to make it work in parallel while fetching tiles. >> While looking at this I saw that all too many classes of Geotools take >> HTTPClient as an argument for the constructor, rather than using a factory >> pattern. And that's strange cause elsewhere you are using factory patterns a >> lot. >> >> >> > 23. des. 2020 kl. 23:46 skrev Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com >> > <mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com>>: >> > >> > Roar: >> > >> > As you may have noticed in the meeting notes your HTTPClient ideas were >> > discussed. As it has grown in the telling I agreed to write this up as a >> > proposal for the community (it is how we do design documents and make sure >> > everyone is in agreement on "big" or "impactful" changes. >> > >> > Before I get going what is your feeling between "gt-http" and "gt-web"? >> > -- >> >> >> I would prefer to use http, as web is too wide. >> For the moment I have these two projects in the file structure: >> >> library / http (gt-http) >> plugin / http-commons (gt-http-commons) >> >> >> Regards >> >> Roar Brænden >
_______________________________________________ GeoTools-Devel mailing list GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
