On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Mohun Biswas wrote:

> why choose a JNI solution over, say, Jakarta HttpClient
> (http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/httpclient/) which is pure Java? I'm not
> writing Java code, at least not on the client side, and thus haven't
> investigated either solution personally. So this is not flamebait but rather
> an honest question which I ask on behalf of those who are doing client-side
> Java HTTP.

I can think of a few different reasons:

1. Speed. libcurl is bound to be faster than pure java solution, especially
   if you're using SSL.

2. Features. I have no idea what stuff that "HttpClient" supports, but perhaps
   libcurl does things it doesn't?

3. Personal preference. Or license condtions. Or quality of code. Or feedback
   on support questions. Or the spirit of the development community. Or that
   it sounds cooler. Or that you're up for the challange.

I don't point fingers and tell people what to do or what to choose. I know
many people continue to ask about a java binding for libcurl, so I figure
there must be some good reasons for these people.

Again, I'm not a java guy so I may be totally out of my league here. Feel free
to ignore me.

-- 
 Daniel Stenberg -- curl: been grokking URLs since 1998
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01