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

Ok, in that case I will name the protocol http-upgrade and https-upgrade.

I think we should probably also use this name in JMX, EJB client etc as well for consistency.

Stuart Brian Stansberry wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ jboss-as7-dev mailing list jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev