On Wednesday 07 February 2007 04:00, Willem Jiang wrote: > Here I just want to ask an other question. > Do we still need to support the RI's sun-jaxws.xml syntax in CXF ? > If So , how can we wrap the jaxws publisher in CXF Servlet ?
I would say no. If we need to, we could easily provide an xsl script or similar to create a cxf version from the sun version. That should be easy to do. Dan > > > [1] > http://weblogs.java.net/blog/kohsuke/archive/2007/01/spring_support.html > > Thanks, > > Willem. > > Dan Diephouse wrote: > > Agreed, I'm -1 on this as well. I think we should either a) support > > the RI syntax (which seems rather limited) or b) Use the Spring 2.0 > > extensions for creation of endpoints. The latter will be much more > > powerful and I don't think any more confusing. XFire users seemed to > > handle having their root element be <beans> alright at least :-) > > > > - Dan > > > > On 2/6/07, *Daniel Kulp* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > > Willem, > > > > The commit you did is still unacceptable as it doesn't address the > > issue of > > embedding the publisher classname into the xml. It also doesn't > > address the > > issue of frontends that have completely different sets of metadata > > than the > > jaxws frontend. For example: > > > > public interface EndpointPublisher { > > void buildEndpoint(Bus bus, String implName, String serviceName, > > URL wsdl, String portName) throws BusException; > > void publish(String address) throws BusException; > > } > > > > What about javascript that doesn't really have a implName or where > > it needs > > other information beyond that? > > > > Dan and I gave a couple of suggestions for a better/cleaner > > design. Could > > you please look at them and figure out which would work best and > > go with > > that? Or come up with your own and propose it here. This > > current design > > is not workable. > > > > I'm not going to -1 the commit yet as I'd like you to have the > > opportunity to > > examine alternatives and get it fixed. > > > > Thanks! > > Dan > > > > On Tuesday 06 February 2007 00:51, Willem Jiang wrote: > > > Hi Dan, > > > Please forget what I had said about finding the publisher by > > > > looking the > > > > > namespace. I have no idea to make the cxf-servlet.xml more > > > flexible now :). > > > > > > If the cxf-servlet need to keep compatible with the JAX-WS > > > > RI, I think > > > > > we can set the default publisher to be > > > org.apache.cxf.jaxws.EndpointPublisherImpl . If CXF-Servlet > > > > can't find > > > > > the publisher attribute from the endpoint element, we set the > > > > publisher > > > > > name to be org.apache.cxf.jaxws.EndpointPublisherImpl. > > > > > > I will update this to my current refactoring work. I hope I > > > > can make a > > > > > commitment today. > > > So the only effection of my CXF-Servlet commitment is to > > > > change the > > > > > servlet-class name from "org.apache.cxf.jaxws.servlet.CXFServlet" > > > to "org.apache.cxf.transport.servlet.CXFServlet " in the web.xml. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Willem. > > > > > > Daniel Kulp wrote: > > > >On Sunday 04 February 2007 23:39, Willem Jiang wrote: > > > >>Hi Dan, > > > >> > > > >>Yes, If we expose too much detail to the user , it will be > > > > painful for > > > > > >>us when we are doing the refactoring stuff. > > > >> > > > >>Current CXF Servlet refactoring just make the Servlet decouple > > > > with the > > > > > >>jaxws front end. In this way the servlet need to get to know > > > > which > > > > > >>publisher implementing could be used in the servlet. > > > >>We can take the publisher as the transport factory and load > > > > different > > > > > >>publisher by the namespace which is defined in the > > > > cxf-servlet.xml. > > > > > >Honestly, I have no idea what you just said here. > > > > > > > >>But we also need to write the servlet class name in Web.xml. > > > > Can we make > > > > > >>it parent to the user ? > > > > > > > >This is mostly because we try to make the war completely > > > > app-server independent. There are ways to register a context > > > > listener (or something, don't remember exactly what. Tuscany > > > > does it.) > > > > with tomcat > > > > > > that would allow the war to not have the web.xml at all. All > > > > that would > > > > > > be needed is the cxf-servlet.xml file. > > > > > > > >That said, the web.xml is a straight copy from the one in > > > > etc. The user > > > > > >doesn't have to touch it to get their app working. They don't > > > > need to > > > > > > even know there is a classname in there. > > > > > > > >>Here is another thought that CXF Servlet also support create > > > > the service > > > > > >>by Spring configuration xml. I think we also need to make it > > > >>sophisticated to support different front-end. > > > > > > > >I'd definitely be OK with this as long as we go the Spring 2.0 > > > > route that > > > > > > Dan has been doing so it's relatively clean looking and not so > > > > "springy". > > > > > >Just FYI: the current format for the cxf-servlet.xml file was > > > > used as it's > > > > > >completely compatible with the JAX-WS RI. If you take the > > > > sun-jaxws.xml > > > > > >from a JAX-WS RI app and rename it to cxf-servlet.xml and > > > > change the > > > > > > web.xml to ours, the apps are supposed to work. (within the > > > > limits of > > > > > > the parts of jax-ws that we currently have working). If we > > > > add the > > > > > > "publisher" or anything to it to distinguish the frontend, > > > > we're going to > > > > > > break that anyway. We might as well go a clean route and use > > > > the schema > > > > > > and the Spring 2.0 stuff. > > > > > > > >Dan > > > > > > > >>Cheers, > > > >> > > > >>Willem. > > > >> > > > >>Daniel Kulp wrote: > > > >>>On Sunday 04 February 2007 20:27, Willem Jiang wrote: > > > >>>>2. cxf-servlet.xml > > > >>>>Adding a publisher attribute in the endpoint element. > > > >>>>It should be > > > > publisher="org.apache.cxf.jaxws.EndpointPublisherImpl" > > > > > >>>>You can find the example from the systest or the kit's samples > > > >>>>hello_world . Please feel free to get touch with me if > > > > you have any > > > > > >>>>issue about the CXF Servlet. > > > >>> > > > >>>I really don't like this part of this. You end up forcing > > > > people to > > > > > >>>embed internal class names into the XML file and thus know > > > > internal > > > > > >>>details about the implementations. It also prevents us from > > > > refactoring > > > > > >>>things, renaming classes, etc... without breaking the users > > > >>> apps. > > > >>> > > > >>>This needs to change to some sort of registry system where > > > > the frontends > > > > > >>>can register a handler to the servlet/bus and the XML just > > > > has some sort > > > > > >>>of key for the XML. I'd prefer a namespace qualified thing > > > > where the > > > > > >>>frontend could provide an entire schema for their section of > > > > the XML. > > > > > >>>If the frontend needs some additional elements in the XML > > > > file, they can > > > > > >>>do it. > > > > -- > > J. Daniel Kulp > > Principal Engineer > > IONA > > P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dan Diephouse > > Envoi Solutions > > http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
