+1 from my point of view.
Christian
Sent from a mobile device
Am 11.06.2012 18:52 schrieb "Daniel Kulp" <dk...@apache.org>:
>
> This does make a lot of sense to me. websocket is really a standard for
> which there could be multiple implementations. Thus, the component name
> really should be the implementation, not the standard. Otherwise you get
> into the whole "camel-http" issue again of having multiple things that
> COULD
> be implementing it.
>
> So +1 for merging into Jetty from me.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 11, 2012 11:38:15 AM Claus Ibsen wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > In Camel 2.10 we introduce a new component: camel-websocket.
> > Its currently based on Jetty, and thus requires jetty to be used.
> >
> > In recent time the component was enhanced to support SSL with websocket
> as
> > well. That change brings in a lot of code that was
> > copied directly from the existing camel-jetty component.
> >
> > So I wonder if we should consider
> >
> > 1)
> > Merge the code from camel-websocket into camel-jetty, as its all Jetty
> > based.
> > This avoid duplicated code,
> > This allows to share port numbers with http services and websocket.
> > Currently that is not possible as its 2 different components.
> >
> > 2)
> > Change the component name from websocket, so its part of jetty, eg
> >
> > from("websocket:foo")
> > becomes
> > from("jetty:ws:foo")
> >
> > The current jetty component supports
> > - http
> > - https
> >
> > So adding websocket is a matter of having
> > - ws
> > - wss
> >
> > 3)
> > In the future there will be other websocket implementations/components in
> > Camel. For example the Atmosphere framework seems to be a great framework
> > for that. As well with future releases of the JEE spec may introduce
> > websocket support from a spec point of view.
> > So having camel-websocket that is tied to Jetty seems to tie the
> "generic"
> > websocket name to a specific implementation (jetty).
> >
> >
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
