Re: [resteasy-dev] Proposed changes to org.jboss.resteasy.client.jaxrs.engines.ApacheHttpClient4Engine

From: "Ron Sigal" <rsigal(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Rebecca Searls" <rsearls(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:16:20 AM Subject: Re: [resteasy-dev] Proposed changes to org.jboss.resteasy.client.jaxrs.engines.ApacheHttpClient4Engine By the way, there's also a Pull Request related to HttpClient: https://github.com/resteasy/Resteasy/pull/540. I think it's the only outstanding PR I haven't looked into. -Ron On 05/17/2016 06:09 AM, Rebecca Searls wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ron Sigal" <rsigal(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 9:26:36 PM >> Subject: Re: [resteasy-dev] Proposed changes to >> org.jboss.resteasy.client.jaxrs.engines.ApacheHttpClient4Engine >> >> Hi Rebecca, >> >> Following up on our discussion during today's meeting, changing that >> constructor would introduce a new behavior that may break someone's code. >> That was the point of the discussion in RESTEASY-975. So we have to come >> to >> some decision about how to manage changes like this. Should we have, as >> you >> suggested, a 3.0.x branch that maintains the current behavior, so that a >> change like this can be introduced into master (or whatever ends up >> serving >> as master for 3.1.x)? My concern is that fixes for older bugs [not that we >> will ever introduce any new bugs ;-) ] will have to be applied to two >> branches. More work, but now we have more people. I don't know. Is that >> considered a best practice? Just wondering. >> >> By the way, other issues that may (or may not) be related: >> >> * https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RESTEASY-906 > I don't see this one as directly related to RESTEASY-1357. Its a secondary > issue. > >> * https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RESTEASY-1089 > This one is directly related. I've linked it to the RESTEASY-1357 > >> * https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RESTEASY-1192 > I think this is a secondary issue as well. >> -Ron >> >> >> >> On 05/15/2016 11:36 PM, Weinan Li wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Rebecca, >> >> Here are two relative issues maybe you'll be interested in: >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RESTEASY-975 >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RESTEASY-1023 - Weinan Li >> >> >> >> On May 16, 2016, at 4:01 AM, Rebecca Searls <rsearls(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> >> I'm cleaning up the deprecated apache classes in resteasy-client. >> I am currently working on >> org.jboss.resteasy.client.jaxrs.engines.ApacheHttpClient4Engine. >> One of four ApacheHttpClient4Engine constructor methods is using the >> deprecated class >> org.apache.http.impl.client.DefaultHttpClient. >> >> public ApacheHttpClient4Engine() >> { >> this.httpClient = new DefaultHttpClient(); >> this.createdHttpClient = true; >> } >> >> Apache's (version 4.3) requirement is to use a HttpClientBuilder to >> generated >> a new HttpClient >> object. I can generated the HttpClient using Builder, HOWEVER doing so >> will >> mean a HttpHost >> can never be assigned to the this.httpClient object. >> >> I propose doing the following to address this. >> >> 1) Implement the no-arg constructor using the new Builder procedure. >> Adding Javadoc comments of the restriction to this constructor. >> 2) Create a new constructor method that requires the input argument of >> HttpHost >> and generates the HttpClient using the Builder procedure. >> >> >> >> ApacheHttpClient4Engine methods getDefaultProxy setDefaultProxy are >> obsolete. >> A HttpPort object can not longer be set or retrieved from HttpClient using >> org.apache.http.params.HttpParams. >> >> I don't find any Resteasy code calling getDefaultProxy. There is only 1 >> call >> to setDefaultProxy which is easily addressed. >> Since both methods are public, I propose the following changes. >> >> 1) Tag both methods deprecated. >> 2) getDefaultProxy() will always return NULL; >> 3) setDefaultProxy() will do nothing. >> 4) Add Javadoc to both methods. >> >> Comments and suggestions on these proposals would be appreciated. >> _______________________________________________ >> resteasy-dev mailing list resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> resteasy-dev mailing list resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev >> >> -- >> My company's smarter than your company (unless you work for Red Hat) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> resteasy-dev mailing list >> resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev >> -- My company's smarter than your company (unless you work for Red Hat)