Re: [aerogear-dev] [Java Sender API] future of AsyncHttpClient

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', &#39;matzew(a)apache.org&#39;);&gt; > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', &#39;scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&#39;);&gt; > > wrote: > >> Hi Folks ! >> As you know the current Java Sender API comes today with 2 different >> implementations : >> >> - Resteasy client (used by default) >> - AsyncHttpClient >> >> I discussed a bit with Matzew and we agreed that we should probably >> remove the AsyncHttpClient implementation and just keep the resteasy >> client, wdyt ? >> > > > yep, I'd prefer one client (based on RestEasy). Also that means we don't > need all the JavaSender, DefaultSender etc... > +1 > > We just have one client, and need to name it "reasonably". > Yea how should we name it ? > > I'd also argue that we should worry that the client can be injected, > using CDI. Makes sense when being used on JavaEE backends > isn't that the responsability of the backend app using the sender or is there anything to do on the sender side ? (in the latest case a jira would be cool)

> > > >> >> Seb >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', >> &#39;aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&#39;);&gt; >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > &#39;aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&#39;);&gt; > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >