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

[Stuart Douglas]

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.
>