UWECProgrammer/ConsolidatedMentionResolutionBenchmark

sentence stringlengths 1 1.38k	label stringclasses 3 values
We used COMET in conjunction with JMS using URL_http://www.ibm.com/developerwo rks/websphere/techjournal/0802%5Fhaverlock/0802%5Fhaverlock.html [WAS-Web-2.0 -Feature-Pack] ; in effect the server did the JMS subscribe and COMET-pushed the message to the browser.	o
as a developer it "felt" like the browser was subscribing to JMS.	o
This "just worked" so we didn't look further for alternatives.	o
I could imagine a pure JavaScript JMS implementation in the browser, using HTTP as a transport but my instict is that this would be very heavyweight.	n
I know of no such implementations.	o
The alternative approach to those already discussed (i.e.	o
Comet etc.	o
) is to implement polling in the client.	o
The downside of that approach is that you inevitably have a delay from the time of the message/event and until the client receives it.	n
If your application is very sensitive to such delays, polling is out.	o
If a certain amount of delay (at minimum in the order of a few seconds) is acceptable, polling is less of an abuse of the HTTP protocol.	n
It is also more robust against temporary network troubles as the server by default queues messages and wont get upset if the client isn't available on its schedule.	p
There is really no big difference between polling and long-lived connections.	o
In both cases you initate a poll, and it will return immediatelly, or with some delay.	o
The longer the delay is the less connections you have to open.	n
In all cases problems like terminated or unanswered calls are just lead to the next poll.	n
Inside the HTTP/1.1 the (TCP)connection typically stays open.	o
Alternatives to Apache HttpComponents?	o
So, I've come to the conclusion that Apache HttpComponents 4 is one of the most overwrought APIs I've ever come across.	n
Things that seem like they should be simple are taking hundreds of lines of code (and I'm _still_ not sure resources get cleaned up correctly).	p
Plus it wants me to do things like: CODESNIPPET_JAVA1 .	o
Which, just... no.	o
I know it's Java, and we're not into the whole brevity thing, but that's a little much.	n
Not to mention the jars are up to 700KB.	o
Anyway, enough ranting, I wanted to see what kind of experiences people have had with other HTTP client libraries?	o
The ones I'm aware of are: URL_http://docs.codehaus.org/display/JETTY/Jetty+HTTP+Client [Jetty] , URL_http://hotpotato.biasedbit.com/ [hotpotato] , and URL_https://github.com/sonatype/async-http-client [AsyncHttpClient] .	o
This is for server-side use, I'm mostly interested in performance for many concurrent gets and large file transfers.	o
Any recommendations?	o
PS I know the venerable HttpClient 3.1 is still there, but I'd like to use something that's supported.	p
Update @oleg: this is what the docs suggest: CODESNIPPET_JAVA2 .	o
I still get unexpected errors when consuming entity content when using CODETERM1 .	o
I'm sure it's my fault, but at this point I don't really want to have to figure it out.	n
Hey, I don't mean to disparage anyone's work here, but I've been making a good-faith effort to use HttpComponents since 4.0 came out and it's just not working for me.	n
While not flawless, have you considered the standard URLConnection/HTTPUrlConnection ?	o
Having to call InputStream#close() to release allocated resources is massively over-complex, isn't it?	o
I would really like to hear what you have discovered since posting this.	o
I'm in the same boat :).	o
Adding a comment since the Jetty http client link mentioned above is so so old, here is the actual client docs.	o
URL_https://www.eclipse.org/jetty/documentation/current/http-client.html .	o
Complexity of HttpClient API simply reflects the complexity of its problem domain.	o
Contrary to a popular misconception HTTP is a fairly complex protocol.	n
Being a low level transport library HC 4.0 API was primarily optimised for performance and flexibility rather than simplicity.	n
It is regrettable that you are not able to figure it out, but so be it.	o
You are welcome to use whatever library that suits your needs best.	p
I personally like Jetty HttpClient a lot.	o
It is a great alternative that might work better for you.	p
I agree with both you (+1) and the OP.	o
The power and flexibility is necessary, but there should also a set of facade methods somewhere that simplify the process.	o
Methods like public static InputStream httpGetAsStream(String baseUrl, Map<string, object=""> parameters).	o
HTTP is complex, but Apache's HttpComponents library ridiculously over- engineered and contains a lot of complexity not essential to protocol operation.	n
It objectively has a really bad API.	n
@Alex B: HttpComponents are being used in all sorts of different applications randing from simple URL fetchers to complex transports and web crawlers with different, often conflicting requirements.	n
What may seem as non-essential to some can be absolutely essential to others.	o
HttpClient has to deal with several dozen customization parameters and context specific strategies and objects.	o
So, flexibility has to come before simplicity.	o
For those who are not able to wrap their head around HttpClient API there is fluent facade API: URL_http://hc.apache.org/httpcomponents-client-dev/fluent-hc/index.html .	o
"Complexity of HttpClient API simply reflects the complexity of its problem domain.	o
" If HC 4.0 was perfect then that would be a good point, but it is not.	p
It has many problems and I imagine a lack of direction lead it into the mess it is today.	n
I think Alex B is right when he says that objectively the API is bad and could have been better.	n
Could have been.	o
Answering my own question since this got resurrected for some reason.	o
I ended up writing a few simple wrappers around CODETERM1 , seems it's come a long way since the last time I seriously considered it.	n
HttpComponents is great, but can be overkill for simple tasks.	p
Also, at least in my scenario, HUC is noticeably faster (mostly single-threaded, haven't done any testing under heavy load).	n
HttpURLConnection instances are significantly cheaper to create than due to the fact that they share one static JRE wide pool of connections.	n
Per default HttpClient always creates a new pool of connections and therefore is slower to start up and warm up.	n
One can address this problem by re-using the same instance of HttpClient for new requests.	o
This approach is used by HttpClient's fluent facade, for isntance: URL_http://hc.apache.org/httpcomponents-client-dev /fluent-hc/index.html.	o
In all other cases I can think of HttpClient should be comfortably faster.	p
Maybe I'm doing something wrong, this isn't exactly rigorous benchmarking.	n
I do always use a single HttpClient instance.	o
Just ran a quick test: fetching from localhost, very small document (150 bytes) x 5000 times takes roughly 10 seconds with HttpClient (4.1) and under 2 seconds with HUC.	o
This actually isn't just academic, my main use-case is lots of small lookups against services on the same machine.	o
I can only give you my (biased) perspective.	o
Any HTTP performance test that lasts 2 second is simply not representative.	o
One need to be running the benchmark for a few minutes to get more or less reliable numbers.	o
Here is the benchmark and some results that we use internally: URL_http://wiki.apache.org/HttpComponents/HttpClient3vsHttpClient4vsHttpCore .	o
HttpClient 4.x performance seems to be quite all right compared to HUC and other clients.	o
Of course.	o
Like I said, it's by no means a comprehensive benchmark.	o
Then again, in _my_ particular case, which is not covered by your benchmark, there is a noticeable difference.	o
I would not generalize from that (certainly isn't representative), but it does factor into my decision of what to use in my scenario.	o
For simple use cases you can use URL_http://hc.apache.org/httpcomponents- client-ga/fluent-hc/ [HttpClient-Fluent-API] .	p
See URL_https://hc.apache.org /httpcomponents-client-ga/tutorial/html/fluent.html [tutorials] .	o
This module provides an easy to use facade API for HttpClient based on the concept of a fluent interface.	p
Fluent facade API exposes only the most fundamental functions of HttpClient and is indended for simple use cases that do not require the full flexibility of HttpClient.	p
For instance, fluent facade API relieves the users from having to deal with connection management and resource deallocation CODESNIPPET_JAVA1 .	o
Maven artifact.	o
CODESNIPPET_JAVA2 .	o
You could use URL_http://www.jboss.org/netty [Netty] or URL_http://mina.apache.org/ [Apache-Mina] albeit they are very low level and I'm not sure you will end up with less verbose code.	n
HTTPUnit has a great interface (not much code needed), but the latest version of it submits duplicate requests.	p
HTMLUnit will work, but for me it has seemed to have limited support for Javascript.	o
I'vebeen able to use it for basic web pages though.	o
You could have a look at URL_http://www.restlet.org [Restlet] 's client capabilities.	o
It's a layer above that can be supported by Apache HttpComponents or Java's Net API for example.	o
I've used Jersey's client, which is conceptually pretty similar.	o
It is pretty convenient for a lot of cases.	o
How to send HTTP request in java?	o
I want to compose a HTTP request message in java and then want to send it to a HTTP WebServer.I also want the document content of the page recieved which I would have recieved if I had sent the same HTTP request from a webpage.	o

We used COMET in conjunction with JMS using URL_http://www.ibm.com/developerwo rks/websphere/techjournal/0802%5Fhaverlock/0802%5Fhaverlock.html [WAS-Web-2.0 -Feature-Pack] ; in effect the server did the JMS subscribe and COMET-pushed the message to the browser.

o

as a developer it "felt" like the browser was subscribing to JMS.

o

This "just worked" so we didn't look further for alternatives.

o

I could imagine a pure JavaScript JMS implementation in the browser, using HTTP as a transport but my instict is that this would be very heavyweight.

n

I know of no such implementations.

o

The alternative approach to those already discussed (i.e.

o

Comet etc.

o

) is to implement polling in the client.

o

The downside of that approach is that you inevitably have a delay from the time of the message/event and until the client receives it.

n

If your application is very sensitive to such delays, polling is out.

o

If a certain amount of delay (at minimum in the order of a few seconds) is acceptable, polling is less of an abuse of the HTTP protocol.

n

It is also more robust against temporary network troubles as the server by default queues messages and wont get upset if the client isn't available on its schedule.

p

There is really no big difference between polling and long-lived connections.

o

In both cases you initate a poll, and it will return immediatelly, or with some delay.

o

The longer the delay is the less connections you have to open.

n

In all cases problems like terminated or unanswered calls are just lead to the next poll.

n

Inside the HTTP/1.1 the (TCP)connection typically stays open.

o

Alternatives to Apache HttpComponents?

o

So, I've come to the conclusion that Apache HttpComponents 4 is one of the most overwrought APIs I've ever come across.

n

Things that seem like they should be simple are taking hundreds of lines of code (and I'm _still_ not sure resources get cleaned up correctly).

p

Plus it wants me to do things like: CODESNIPPET_JAVA1 .

o

Which, just... no.

o

I know it's Java, and we're not into the whole brevity thing, but that's a little much.

n

Not to mention the jars are up to 700KB.

o

Anyway, enough ranting, I wanted to see what kind of experiences people have had with other HTTP client libraries?

o

The ones I'm aware of are: URL_http://docs.codehaus.org/display/JETTY/Jetty+HTTP+Client [Jetty] , URL_http://hotpotato.biasedbit.com/ [hotpotato] , and URL_https://github.com/sonatype/async-http-client [AsyncHttpClient] .

o

This is for server-side use, I'm mostly interested in performance for many concurrent gets and large file transfers.

o

Any recommendations?

o

PS I know the venerable HttpClient 3.1 is still there, but I'd like to use something that's supported.

p

Update @oleg: this is what the docs suggest: CODESNIPPET_JAVA2 .

o

I still get unexpected errors when consuming entity content when using CODETERM1 .

o

I'm sure it's my fault, but at this point I don't really want to have to figure it out.

n

Hey, I don't mean to disparage anyone's work here, but I've been making a good-faith effort to use HttpComponents since 4.0 came out and it's just not working for me.

n

While not flawless, have you considered the standard URLConnection/HTTPUrlConnection ?

o

Having to call InputStream#close() to release allocated resources is massively over-complex, isn't it?

o

I would really like to hear what you have discovered since posting this.

o

I'm in the same boat :).

o

Adding a comment since the Jetty http client link mentioned above is so so old, here is the actual client docs.

o

URL_https://www.eclipse.org/jetty/documentation/current/http-client.html .

o

Complexity of HttpClient API simply reflects the complexity of its problem domain.

o

Contrary to a popular misconception HTTP is a fairly complex protocol.

n

Being a low level transport library HC 4.0 API was primarily optimised for performance and flexibility rather than simplicity.

n

It is regrettable that you are not able to figure it out, but so be it.

o

You are welcome to use whatever library that suits your needs best.

p

I personally like Jetty HttpClient a lot.

o

It is a great alternative that might work better for you.

p

I agree with both you (+1) and the OP.

o

The power and flexibility is necessary, but there should also a set of facade methods somewhere that simplify the process.

o

Methods like public static InputStream httpGetAsStream(String baseUrl, Map<string, object=""> parameters).

o

HTTP is complex, but Apache's HttpComponents library ridiculously over- engineered and contains a lot of complexity not essential to protocol operation.

n

It objectively has a really bad API.

n

@Alex B: HttpComponents are being used in all sorts of different applications randing from simple URL fetchers to complex transports and web crawlers with different, often conflicting requirements.

n

What may seem as non-essential to some can be absolutely essential to others.

o

HttpClient has to deal with several dozen customization parameters and context specific strategies and objects.

o

So, flexibility has to come before simplicity.

o

For those who are not able to wrap their head around HttpClient API there is fluent facade API: URL_http://hc.apache.org/httpcomponents-client-dev/fluent-hc/index.html .

o

"Complexity of HttpClient API simply reflects the complexity of its problem domain.

o

" If HC 4.0 was perfect then that would be a good point, but it is not.

p

It has many problems and I imagine a lack of direction lead it into the mess it is today.

n

I think Alex B is right when he says that objectively the API is bad and could have been better.

n

Could have been.

o

Answering my own question since this got resurrected for some reason.

o

I ended up writing a few simple wrappers around CODETERM1 , seems it's come a long way since the last time I seriously considered it.

n

HttpComponents is great, but can be overkill for simple tasks.

p

Also, at least in my scenario, HUC is noticeably faster (mostly single-threaded, haven't done any testing under heavy load).

n

HttpURLConnection instances are significantly cheaper to create than due to the fact that they share one static JRE wide pool of connections.

n

Per default HttpClient always creates a new pool of connections and therefore is slower to start up and warm up.

n

One can address this problem by re-using the same instance of HttpClient for new requests.

o

This approach is used by HttpClient's fluent facade, for isntance: URL_http://hc.apache.org/httpcomponents-client-dev /fluent-hc/index.html.

o

In all other cases I can think of HttpClient should be comfortably faster.

p

Maybe I'm doing something wrong, this isn't exactly rigorous benchmarking.

n

I do always use a single HttpClient instance.

o

Just ran a quick test: fetching from localhost, very small document (150 bytes) x 5000 times takes roughly 10 seconds with HttpClient (4.1) and under 2 seconds with HUC.

o

This actually isn't just academic, my main use-case is lots of small lookups against services on the same machine.

o

I can only give you my (biased) perspective.

o

Any HTTP performance test that lasts 2 second is simply not representative.

o

One need to be running the benchmark for a few minutes to get more or less reliable numbers.

o

Here is the benchmark and some results that we use internally: URL_http://wiki.apache.org/HttpComponents/HttpClient3vsHttpClient4vsHttpCore .

o

HttpClient 4.x performance seems to be quite all right compared to HUC and other clients.

o

Of course.

o

Like I said, it's by no means a comprehensive benchmark.

o

Then again, in _my_ particular case, which is not covered by your benchmark, there is a noticeable difference.

o

I would not generalize from that (certainly isn't representative), but it does factor into my decision of what to use in my scenario.

o

For simple use cases you can use URL_http://hc.apache.org/httpcomponents- client-ga/fluent-hc/ [HttpClient-Fluent-API] .

p

See URL_https://hc.apache.org /httpcomponents-client-ga/tutorial/html/fluent.html [tutorials] .

o

This module provides an easy to use facade API for HttpClient based on the concept of a fluent interface.

p

Fluent facade API exposes only the most fundamental functions of HttpClient and is indended for simple use cases that do not require the full flexibility of HttpClient.

p

For instance, fluent facade API relieves the users from having to deal with connection management and resource deallocation CODESNIPPET_JAVA1 .

o

Maven artifact.

o

CODESNIPPET_JAVA2 .

o

You could use URL_http://www.jboss.org/netty [Netty] or URL_http://mina.apache.org/ [Apache-Mina] albeit they are very low level and I'm not sure you will end up with less verbose code.

n

HTTPUnit has a great interface (not much code needed), but the latest version of it submits duplicate requests.

p

HTMLUnit will work, but for me it has seemed to have limited support for Javascript.

o

I'vebeen able to use it for basic web pages though.

o

You could have a look at URL_http://www.restlet.org [Restlet] 's client capabilities.

o

It's a layer above that can be supported by Apache HttpComponents or Java's Net API for example.

o

I've used Jersey's client, which is conceptually pretty similar.

o

It is pretty convenient for a lot of cases.

o

How to send HTTP request in java?

o

I want to compose a HTTP request message in java and then want to send it to a HTTP WebServer.I also want the document content of the page recieved which I would have recieved if I had sent the same HTTP request from a webpage.

o