Shipping an official HTTP client in Netty (NETTY-333)

[Norman Maurer]

I think its a good think for netty to just be an api.. This helps to
concentrate on the "core" and does not push to much dependencies etc
in.

Bye,
Norman


2011/10/27 Kevin Burton <burtonator at gmail.com>:
> I was looking at NETTY-333 (and have been thinking about this a bit lately)
>
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/NETTY-333?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel#issue-tabs
>
> ... and I think Netty should ship an official HTTP client. Not just an
> example.
>
> This would be a replacement for java.net.URL or say Jakarta HttpClient.
>
> This would have the following advantages:
>
> 1. More people would be able to use Netty.  Right now Netty is mostly an API
> for building clients and servers but this would mean that people can use
> Netty out of the box for their usages.
>
> 2. The client would use best practices and avoid common bugs.  I built a
> client in Peregrine that uses Netty and I've already been bitten by a few
> issues I didn't anticipate.
>
> 3. Developers would benefit from bugs fixed in the client moving forward as
> they are fixed.
>
> I also think we may need to build a different type of client that isn't
> necessarily fully async.
>
> What I did with peregrine (as it fits directly into the model I need) is
> that we write to a buffer from the main thread.  The buffer then writes to
> Netty which then does Async IO (this is an HTTP PUT client).  The great
> thing about this model is that if the receiver can't handle the data being
> sent to it, the client just blocks.
>
> In our usage we often write from 1 client to N servers.  Anywhere from
> 10-1000 ... so the async buys us the ability to not need 1k threads doing
> the IO.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> _______________________________________________
> netty-users mailing list
> netty-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-users
>