DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27589] - MultiThreadedConnectionManager should provide a shutdown

2004-03-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27589. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

Httpclient + HTTPS + Proxy + BASIC Authentication

2004-03-24 Thread John Melody
Hi, I have read the notes on the bug in Httpclient V2.0 to do with using Basic Authentication with a HTTPS Url through a proxy. One workaround proposed is to use preemptive authentication. Are the credentials i.e. username, password sent unencrypted to the target server when Preemptive

Re: [VOTE][PROPOSAL] Promote HttpClient to Jakarta Level

2004-03-24 Thread Michael Becke
+1 On Mar 24, 2004, at 2:24 AM, Adrian Sutton wrote: Hi all, Continuing to push this forward, I propose that we adopt the proposal below as our formal proposal to the Jakarta PMC to promote HttpClient to a Jakarta level project. Please vote as follows:

Re: [PATCH] Yet another refactoring of authentication logic Oops Idid it again

2004-03-24 Thread Michael Becke
Hi Oleg, Sorry, I completely forgot about this one. Could you send the patch again, or add it to a bug? Mike On Mar 24, 2004, at 5:55 AM, Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: Any objections to committing this patch? Oleg -Original Message- From: Oleg Kalnichevski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 25529] - Redesign of HTTP authentication framework

2004-03-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25529. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 25529] - Redesign of HTTP authentication framework

2004-03-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25529. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

RE: Httpclient + HTTPS + Proxy + BASIC Authentication

2004-03-24 Thread Kalnichevski, Oleg
John, HttpClient will not/cannot attempt to authenticate with the target server until the transport layer (SSL tunnel) is up and running. It does not matter if pre-emptive authentication is used or not, SSL takes care of the transport security between the client and the target server. Only

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 25529] - Redesign of HTTP authentication framework

2004-03-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25529. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

Re: [VOTE][PROPOSAL] Promote HttpClient to Jakarta Level

2004-03-24 Thread dion
Michael Becke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 25/03/2004 12:23:46 AM: Please vote as follows: - Vote: Promote HttpClient to Jakarta level [X] +1 I am in favor of the proposal, and will help support it. [ ] +0 I am in favor

Re: question re: cookies

2004-03-24 Thread Roland Weber
Hello Gil, two options. If you only need to get the cookie for your application, then access the header directly instead of looking into the http state. That's probably what your old code did, right? Otherwise, implement and configure your own cookie policy. Copy the default implementation that

RE: question re: cookies

2004-03-24 Thread Alvarez, Gil
Thanks, yes, the old code pulled it out of the header directly, but the rest of the story is that I save that cookie for later submittal in a url request. I tried using addRequestHeader(Cookie, ...) and that didn't work. I surmised that it was because httpclient liked to operate with higher-level

RE: question re: cookies

2004-03-24 Thread Roland Weber
Ah yes, cookie headers that were manually set used to get overridden. As far as I remember, that changed a while back. Though I cannot tell whether the change went into 2.0 or only into the development branch. cheers, Roland Alvarez, Gil [EMAIL PROTECTED] 25.03.2004 08:04 Please respond