Re: [jboss-as7-dev] HTTP Upgrade for AS8 Management

On 3/28/13 8:31 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote: > On 03/28/2013 06:27 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote: >> >> >> Darran Lofthouse wrote: >>> On 28/03/13 11:04, Stuart Douglas wrote: >>>> This is what we have been using to represent JBoss remoting URI's so >>>> far. I do agree that is is a bit ambiguous. >>> >>> I am not sure if that has been a deliberate decision but apart from >>> naming it has not really been that visible so far. >>> >>> I think what happened was the Remoting test suite had tests that had >>> local and remote connection providers registered and then these names >>> have stuck as new communication libraries have followed the test suite. >>> >>> So those names work when using the remoting APIs directly but are not so >>> good once you are using an alternative API that is wrapping Remoting. >>> >>> I think whatever set of protocol names we choose they are going to need >>> to be ones we can live with long term. The suggestions for Remoting JMX >>> I think are fine, if we ever wanted pure http for JMX that could be a >>> new library with a completely different protocol in the Service URL. >>> >>> However another question for 'ModelControllerClient' are we also sure we >>> will never want to add support for pure HTTP invocations? >> >> That is also a question that will need to be answered for EJB. I know >> work is being done on a pure HTTP client, so we need to make sure that >> there is no ambiguity there. >> >> Also if we have HTTP upgrade, why would we need a pure HTTP client >> library? The only reason that I can think of is that if there are some >> firewalls that block HTTP upgrade, but I am not really sure if that is >> really a thing. > > It would be useful for thin (e.g. JS in the browser) clients which > cannot do upgrade. > I haven't heard of any proposal to remove the existing REST-ish HTTP API though. I do think it makes sense to be less ambiguous about the protocol names for ModelControllerClient.Factory. Call them http-upgrade/https-upgrade and that removes the ambiguity and leaves http/https available for the future. It's just clearer anyway; otherwise people will incorrectly assume "http" results in the client using the REST-ish API.