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

[Brian Stansberry]

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.

-- 
Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat