You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hc.apache.org by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> on 2007/04/12 15:38:22 UTC
[HttpAuth] HTTP authentication framework ported from 3.1 to 4.0
Folks,
I completed the port of the HTTP authentication framework from Commons
HttpClient to the HttpComponents codebase. At the moment only Basic and
Digest authentication scheme implementations are supported, but this
should be enough for the time being. Now we should have all low level
components needed to make the final push towards the 4.0 ALPHA1 release
of HttpClient.
At some point of time we will have to decide
(1) what to do about the NTLM code. I am kind of leaning toward removing
NTLM code from the stock version of HttpClient altogether (for all sorts
of reasons, legal including) and providing it as an optional JCIFS based
package hosted at the SourceForge. This needs to be thoroughly thought
over and discussed when Odi comes back from his vacation
(2) whether we want to fold SPNEGO authentication scheme (currently in
contrib) into HttpClient proper.
Roland,
I made some changes to the SchemeRegistry class in order to make its API
and internal implementation more consistent with CookieSpecRegistry and
AuthSchemeRegistry classes. In particular I removed some of the code you
wrote. Please take a look. (I hope this will not provoke yet another
food fight between us ;-) )
Evil Comrade Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Fooooooood fight! was Re: [HttpAuth] HTTP
authentication framework ported from 3.1 to 4.0
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 20:03 +0200, Roland Weber wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
>
> > My main issue with the build.xml is that it evolved into something that
> > only one person could maintain and efficiently work with. I attempted to
> > address the situation by eliminating what I saw as unnecessary
> > complexity. I just could not think of this as something you might find
> > offending. Anyways, I apologize for whatever action on my part that came
> > across as disrespectful. It was not my intent.
>
> Thanks. I can see your point about the complexity. When the modules were
> introduced, it was really all kept together by naming conventions. I will
> create a local build process for my purposes when I find the time.
> Feel free to weed out HttpClient build.xml, too. You'll understand that
> I won't be throwing out the stuff I put in there myself :-)
>
Roland
I have spent countless hours developing and maintaining HttpClient 2.x
and 3.x codelines, even though I always considered them flawed
architecturally. Do you want to take a guess how much of that work will
be thrown away?
Oleg
> cheers,
> Roland
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Fooooooood fight! was Re: [HttpAuth] HTTP authentication framework
ported from 3.1 to 4.0
Posted by Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net>.
Hi Oleg,
> My main issue with the build.xml is that it evolved into something that
> only one person could maintain and efficiently work with. I attempted to
> address the situation by eliminating what I saw as unnecessary
> complexity. I just could not think of this as something you might find
> offending. Anyways, I apologize for whatever action on my part that came
> across as disrespectful. It was not my intent.
Thanks. I can see your point about the complexity. When the modules were
introduced, it was really all kept together by naming conventions. I will
create a local build process for my purposes when I find the time.
Feel free to weed out HttpClient build.xml, too. You'll understand that
I won't be throwing out the stuff I put in there myself :-)
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Fooooooood fight! was Re: [HttpAuth] HTTP authentication
framework ported from 3.1 to 4.0
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 19:18 +0200, Roland Weber wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
>
> > If you are referring to commit r514774 I thought the technical reasons
> > were fairly clear: (1) we are not shipping contrib code with the
> > official distribution, so what is the point to reference it in the build
> > file? It just makes it messier
>
> It hasn't hurt anyone so far, has it?
>
> > (2) for the love of Lord what's wrong
> > with having a local copy of the build script that exactly what you want
> > the way you want?
>
> Yepp, I should have thought about that last year when I set out to
> rework the build process so that I would not have to maintain a
> second one locally. Beginner's mistake. Now I can't use the build process
> as it was, because the default build.xml filename is occupied. If I put
> anything into the directory tree, it will inevitably end up in svn through
> an accidental commit.
Hi Roland,
Add whatever local files you do not want to end up committed through an
accidental commit to svn:ignore
> Never mind, I should be able to hack something up
> within two or three hours. It's just that I wouldn't have spent time on
> the official build process last year if I had known that I wouldn't be
> able to use it for my purposes.
> My main issue with this change was that it feels pretty disrespectful if
> almost half of your everyday build targets are removed without an advance
> warning and discussion. (Not that I would have been able to put that in
> words at the time. Then, it just hurt.) Besides, until you mentioned it
> before the last release, I was assuming that we did include the full
> Java directories, including contrib code, in the source distribution. I
> never cared to check for the presence of individual subdirectories before.
>
My main issue with the build.xml is that it evolved into something that
only one person could maintain and efficiently work with. I attempted to
address the situation by eliminating what I saw as unnecessary
complexity. I just could not think of this as something you might find
offending. Anyways, I apologize for whatever action on my part that came
across as disrespectful. It was not my intent.
Oleg
> > Please lighten up, Roland. There is no evil Russian conspiracy here
>
> I'll be pondering that for some time. You'll know that I got over it
> when I fix the JavaDoc warnings in core.
>
> cheers,
> Roland
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Fooooooood fight! was Re: [HttpAuth] HTTP authentication framework
ported from 3.1 to 4.0
Posted by Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net>.
Hi Oleg,
> If you are referring to commit r514774 I thought the technical reasons
> were fairly clear: (1) we are not shipping contrib code with the
> official distribution, so what is the point to reference it in the build
> file? It just makes it messier
It hasn't hurt anyone so far, has it?
> (2) for the love of Lord what's wrong
> with having a local copy of the build script that exactly what you want
> the way you want?
Yepp, I should have thought about that last year when I set out to
rework the build process so that I would not have to maintain a
second one locally. Beginner's mistake. Now I can't use the build process
as it was, because the default build.xml filename is occupied. If I put
anything into the directory tree, it will inevitably end up in svn through
an accidental commit. Never mind, I should be able to hack something up
within two or three hours. It's just that I wouldn't have spent time on
the official build process last year if I had known that I wouldn't be
able to use it for my purposes.
My main issue with this change was that it feels pretty disrespectful if
almost half of your everyday build targets are removed without an advance
warning and discussion. (Not that I would have been able to put that in
words at the time. Then, it just hurt.) Besides, until you mentioned it
before the last release, I was assuming that we did include the full
Java directories, including contrib code, in the source distribution. I
never cared to check for the presence of individual subdirectories before.
> Please lighten up, Roland. There is no evil Russian conspiracy here
I'll be pondering that for some time. You'll know that I got over it
when I fix the JavaDoc warnings in core.
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Fooooooood fight! was Re: [HttpAuth] HTTP authentication framework
ported from 3.1 to 4.0
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 21:58 +0200, Roland Weber wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
>
> > I made some changes to the SchemeRegistry class in order to make its API
> > and internal implementation more consistent with CookieSpecRegistry and
> > AuthSchemeRegistry classes. In particular I removed some of the code you
> > wrote. Please take a look.
>
> No problem. You put in other code that does the same.
>
> > (I hope this will not provoke yet another
> > food fight between us ;-) )
>
> I'm not in the mood to pick fights. (With you, that is. I'm going to my
> first-ever political demonstration tomorrow.) I still haven't decided what
> to do about the build process. I know you didn't mean it that way, but it
> sure _feels_ like a personal attack, considering that I am not aware of
> anyone who might have gotten any benefit from that chance, nor have been
> given a technical reason for it. References to modern IDEs are not the
> best way to pacify me :-)
>
If you are referring to commit r514774 I thought the technical reasons
were fairly clear: (1) we are not shipping contrib code with the
official distribution, so what is the point to reference it in the build
file? It just makes it messier (2) for the love of Lord what's wrong
with having a local copy of the build script that exactly what you want
the way you want?
Please lighten up, Roland. There is no evil Russian conspiracy here
Oleg
> cheers,
> Roland
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [HttpAuth] HTTP authentication framework ported from 3.1 to 4.0
Posted by Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net>.
Hi Oleg,
> I made some changes to the SchemeRegistry class in order to make its API
> and internal implementation more consistent with CookieSpecRegistry and
> AuthSchemeRegistry classes. In particular I removed some of the code you
> wrote. Please take a look.
No problem. You put in other code that does the same.
> (I hope this will not provoke yet another
> food fight between us ;-) )
I'm not in the mood to pick fights. (With you, that is. I'm going to my
first-ever political demonstration tomorrow.) I still haven't decided what
to do about the build process. I know you didn't mean it that way, but it
sure _feels_ like a personal attack, considering that I am not aware of
anyone who might have gotten any benefit from that chance, nor have been
given a technical reason for it. References to modern IDEs are not the
best way to pacify me :-)
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org