Re: HttpClient performance

2004-08-20 Thread Oleg Kalnichevski
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 21:23, Zulfi Umrani wrote: > >>(3) HttpClient handsomely beats HttpURLConnection when streaming out > entity enclosing requests (POST, PUT)<< > > Hi Oleg, > I am a bit skeptical about your test#3 for POST. I am doing POST myself > but the performance of HttpClient is not bett

Re: HttpClient performance

2004-08-20 Thread Zulfi Umrani
>>(3) HttpClient handsomely beats HttpURLConnection when streaming out entity enclosing requests (POST, PUT)<< Hi Oleg, I am a bit skeptical about your test#3 for POST. I am doing POST myself but the performance of HttpClient is not better than java.net.HttpURLConnection. I have posted another ema

Re: HttpClient performance

2004-08-20 Thread Oleg Kalnichevski
> I do not remember which earlier releases I used. I only remeber that it > did not have the rcX attached to it. I am not sure if it matters now. I > guess, the only thing we are concerned here is whether we can get > HttpClient performance better than JDK or not. If yes, then how do we > get it? I

HttpClient performance

2004-08-20 Thread Zulfi Umrani
Hi, Just wondering what were the results you got from your tests. I did not find the results on the email archive, may be because I was not subscribed. Thanks, Zulfi Ortwin Glück wrote Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:06:41 +0200 From: Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: HttpClient performance C

HttpClient performance

2004-08-20 Thread Zulfi Umrani
Looks I did not receive the response because I wasn't subscribed. The reason I did not put my performance results down, was because I thought I am having the same kinda problem as was earlier reported. I was interested in what happened to those problems and whether a solution was found. But anyway

Looks I did not receive the response because I wasn't subscribed. The reason I did not put my perfor

2004-08-20 Thread Zulfi Umrani
Looks I did not receive the response because I wasn't subscribed. The reason I did not put my performance results down, was because I thought I am having the same kinda problem as was earlier reported. I was interested in what happened to those problems and whether a solution was found. But anyway

Hi,

2004-08-20 Thread Zulfi Umrani
Hi, Just wondering what were the results you got from your tests. I did not find the results on the email archive, may be because I was not subscribed. Thanks, Zulfi Ortwin Glück wrote Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:06:41 +0200 From: Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: HttpClient performance C

RE: HttpRecoverableException

2004-08-20 Thread Labajo, Dennis
Hi Ortwin, Thank you for your reply. I've answered your questions below: 1. Why does the method need to be retried in the first place? Answer: We've been getting "HttpRecoverableException" and I've initially coded a custom retry for handling these types of exceptions. However, I came across

RE: PostMethod setQueryString

2004-08-20 Thread Karthikeyani K
Thanks Oleg. "Kalnichevski, Oleg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Query params are part of the request URL and as such can be used with any HTTP method. A request body on the other hand can be sent by so called entity enclosing methods only (such as POST and PUT). PostMethod.setRequestBody(NameValue

RE: PostMethod setQueryString

2004-08-20 Thread Kalnichevski, Oleg
Query params are part of the request URL and as such can be used with any HTTP method. A request body on the other hand can be sent by so called entity enclosing methods only (such as POST and PUT). PostMethod.setRequestBody(NameValuePair[]) method takes a array of name/value pairs and construc

PostMethod setQueryString

2004-08-20 Thread Karthikeyani K
Hi, What is the difference between invoking setQueryString(NameValuePair[]) and setRequestBody(NameValuePair[]) on PostMethod. When we try to use setQueryString(NameValuePair[]), we are getting the response back. But when we try to use setRequestBody(NameValuePair[]), we are getting

RE: HttpClient ConnectionTimeOut

2004-08-20 Thread Kalnichevski, Oleg
Yes, it is. -Original Message- From: Karthikeyani K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Freitag, 20. August 2004 16:24 To: Commons HttpClient Project Subject: RE: HttpClient ConnectionTimeOut Oleg, Thanks. We are using HttpClient 2.0 version downloaded from http://jakarta.apache.org/s

RE: HttpClient ConnectionTimeOut

2004-08-20 Thread Karthikeyani K
Oleg, Thanks. We are using HttpClient 2.0 version downloaded from http://jakarta.apache.org/site/binindex.cgi. Is this the correct location to download the jar files. Thanks, Karthi "Kalnichevski, Oleg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Karthi HttpClient what version are you using 2.0.x (stab

RE: HttpClient ConnectionTimeOut

2004-08-20 Thread Kalnichevski, Oleg
Karthi HttpClient what version are you using 2.0.x (stable) or 3.0-alpha1. HttpClient 2.0 throws org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpConnection.ConnectionTimeoutException to signal a connect timeout. HttpClient 3.0 does org.apache.commons.httpclient.ConnectTimeoutException Oleg -Original M

HttpClient ConnectionTimeOut

2004-08-20 Thread Karthikeyani K
Hi, We have set ConnectionTimeout for httpclient to 1 milliseconds. What exeception does it throw when a Connection times out. How do we track that a connection has timed out. If a connection times out, we need to send a response to the user to try later. Thanks, Karthi

Performance HttpClient 2.0.1 vs HttpClient 2.0-alpha3 vs HttpURLConnection jre1.4

2004-08-20 Thread Kalnichevski, Oleg
All right. I ran a few tests to see how well (or badly) HttpClient measures up to the performance if HttpURLConnection shipped with JRE1.4 (v1.4.2.3) Test platform: Win2k (PIII 512MB) + Tomcat 4.1.29 (JDK1.4.2.3 Xms128M Xmx256M) running locally Test code attached below There are the results =

Re: HttpClient performance (with download URL)

2004-08-20 Thread Ortwin Glück
Zulfi, I ran the profiler on HttpClient 2.0-alpha3 and HttpClient 2.0 Branch latest CVS I basically used Oleg's test case provided in the email thread you mentioned (code included). I turned off logging and stale connection checking. I ran the tests against a local Tomcat on a Win2k Pro workstation

Re: HttpClient performance

2004-08-20 Thread Ortwin Glück
Zulfi, I ran the profiler on HttpClient 2.0-alpha3 and HttpClient 2.0 Branch latest CVS I basically used Oleg's test case provided in the email thread you mentioned (code included). I turned off logging and stale connection checking. I ran the tests against a local Tomcat on a Win2k Pro workstati

RE: HttpClient performance

2004-08-20 Thread Kalnichevski, Oleg
Zulfi, If you expect us to react on this report, you have to be a little more specific on how exactly you measured the performance, exactly what kind of HTTP methods your tests included, exactly what pre-release-candidate you are referring to, and what exactly you mean by "but it is still slow