Add Initial Support for AWS Common Runtime Http Client

[alexw91]

Description

Add Initial Support for AWS Common Runtime Http Client. Users should consider this Client to be in "Early Beta" stage, and users should not replace usages of other Http clients with this one yet.

Motivation and Context

AwsCrtAsyncHttpClient is a non-blocking AsyncIO Http Client that is owned and maintained by AWS that uses the AWS TLS Library s2n on Linux platforms.

Known Missing Features not included in this Pull Request

• No support for connection pooling or parallelizing requests to the same endpoint over multiple connections. Updated PR to use HttpConnectionPoolManager.
• No Performance Tests Added AwsCrtAsyncHttpClient sdk-benchmarks Module
• No support for plaintext Http connections

Testing

1. AwsCrtHttpClientSpiVerificationTest
   • Verifies AwsCrtAsyncHttpClient correctly implements the SdkAsyncHttpClient SPI
2. AwsCrtResponseBodyPublisherReactiveStreamCompatTest
   • Verifies AwsCrtResponseBodyPublisher correctly implements the Publisher<ByteBuffer> API
3. AwsCrtRequestBodySubscriberReactiveStreamCompatTest
   • Verifies AwsCrtRequestBodySubscriber correctly implements the Subscriber<ByteBuffer> API
4. AwsCrtClientKmsIntegrationTest
   • Verifies that AwsCrtAsyncHttpClient can be used to make CreateKey, Encrypt, and Decrypt calls to KMS.
5. AwsCrtClientS3IntegrationTest
   • Verifies that AwsCrtAsyncHttpClient can download a file from S3 and that the file has the correct SHA-256 hash.
6. AwsCrtClientCallingPatternIntegrationTest
   • Verifies that the AwsCrtAsyncHttpClient works in various combinations of calling patterns.

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Checklist

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document
• Local run of mvn install succeeds
• My code follows the code style of this project
• My change requires a change to the Javadoc documentation
• I have updated the Javadoc documentation accordingly
• I have read the README document
• I have added tests to cover my changes
• All new and existing tests passed
• A short description of the change has been added to the CHANGELOG
• My change is to implement 1.11 parity feature and I have updated LaunchChangelog

License

• I confirm that this pull request can be released under the Apache 2 license

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #1359 into master will increase coverage by 0.18%.
The diff coverage is 82.39%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #1359      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     70.94%   71.12%   +0.18%     
- Complexity      188      262      +74     
============================================
  Files           777      782       +5     
  Lines         24266    24570     +304     
  Branches       1817     1854      +37     
============================================
+ Hits          17216    17476     +260     
- Misses         6257     6285      +28     
- Partials        793      809      +16

Flag	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
#unittests	71.12% <82.39%> (+0.18%)	262 <74> (+74)	⬆️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
...p/crt/internal/AwsCrtResponseBodySubscription.java	100% <100%> (ø)	5 <5> (?)
...http/crt/internal/AwsCrtRequestBodySubscriber.java	78% <78%> (ø)	12 <12> (?)
.../amazon/awssdk/http/crt/AwsCrtAsyncHttpClient.java	78.84% <78.84%> (ø)	21 <21> (?)
...http/crt/internal/AwsCrtResponseBodyPublisher.java	84.26% <84.26%> (ø)	24 <24> (?)
...ttp/crt/internal/AwsCrtAsyncHttpStreamAdapter.java	86.66% <86.66%> (ø)	12 <12> (?)
...on/awssdk/services/kinesis/KinesisRetryPolicy.java	85.71% <0%> (ø)	0% <0%> (ø)	⬇️
... and 7 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 393687d...5722ad4. Read the comment docs.

[JonathanHenson]

is this H2 compatible? wouldn't it be :authority in that case?

[alexw91]

Sending 'Host' Header is compatible with both Http/1 and Http/2, but it is recommended to send :authority Header instead of 'Host' if using Http/2.

From the HTTP/2 RFC: Clients that generate HTTP/2 requests directly SHOULD use the :authority pseudo-header field instead of the Host header field.

Also, I don't think we know which version of Http is being used at this point so we shouldn't generate headers that are only compatible with Http/2.

[JonathanHenson]

just nit picks and questions.

Fix-n-ship