+1 for upgrading to HttpClient 3.0 and fix license

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:54:57 +0100, Andrew Evers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> I consider the server side of 2.0 to be relatively stable, we're using
> parts of it (but not the Server/Worker stuff) in production, and have
> been for a while.
> 
> Based on the review/bugfix of this morning, I'm not as convinced about
> the client side. The transport stuff is quite new, and would (modulo
> finalize() cleaning up) leak connections up until the patch I just made.
> 
> HttpClient is also now at version 3.0, and some of the other commons
> components have updated their implementations (if not their API's). If
> we were to release 2.0 I would expect to be using
> a) The latest versions of other Apache components.
> b) The most appropriate version of the license (the code is still under
> an older license).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Andrew.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:06 PM
> To: xmlrpc-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ws-xmlrpc/src/java/org/apache/xmlrpc
> CommonsXmlRpcTransport.java DefaultXmlRpcTransport.java
> LiteXmlRpcTransport.java XmlRpc.java XmlRpcClientWorker.java
> XmlRpcTransport.java
> 
> Well I'm using this patched 2.0 on developpement systems without
> problems :)
> 
> Will you still commit on 2.0 or should we consider the current HEAD as
> 'stable' ?
> 
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:02:18 +0100, Andrew Evers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Henri,
> >
> > I'm currently focusing on fixing up 1.2 (the stuff you saw on 2.0 was
> to
> > fix a bug, not to add a feature). I'm also not that au fait with the
> > CommonsHttpTransport stuff (that's Ryan's baby), so I am loathe to add
> > features without test cases.
> >
> > Can you provide some test cases that use your gzip functionality?
> >
> > Creating a bugzilla bug and attaching the patch and a test case to it
> is
> > a great way of making committer's lives easier (and getting your patch
> > accepted as a result ;).
> 
>

Reply via email to