Daniel Kulp schrieb:
Btw. is it really necessary to do different things for sync and async?
Of course the ClientImpl has to support a sync and async mode but I think
the transports could be made completely async. Does the Exchange even
has to know if it is synchronous?
It could, but HTTP and CORBA performance would certainly suffer and the number
of threads blocked on requests in the sync cases would double. Since part
of what I'm trying to do is eliminate/reduce the number of blocked threads,
that would be bad. Basically, if a request is known to be synchronous, if
the transports can do everything on the single thread, that's greatly
preferred. Otherwise, you have the ClientImpl blocking as well as a
background thread blocking for the transport. (along with all the context
switches and such to flip threads through the CPU)
I don´t think that this has to be the case. An async http request could
send the request and store the http session in the message.
Then it could return. The client would then call another function to
wait for the response. I am not yet sure how this could work but I will
try to work out something that works equally well with http and jms.
I think the client calls into the Conduit with a "done" message or something
at the end. The JMS conduit should be able to do any cleanup there:
getConduitSelector().complete(exchange);
If I understand this right then this method calls the close(Message)
method on the conduit. So this is where I should remove the correlation?
For this to work I have to encode the correlationId in the Message or
the Exchange. Any idea where I should put it? Should I create a new map
key for this or is there a default place for correlationIds?
Generally I would
suggest doing the whole correlation already in the client. So we could
keep this out of the transport code.
Not sure if that's completely possible. Things like HTTP and CORBA don't
have any correlation ID on the wire. Thus, those transports would need to
add stuff and record various "fake" id's and such to make that work.
Basically, you remove it from JMS, but add it to the others. (I think)
HTTP may not need a correlationId in its normal snychronous way. But
there are use cases where two separate http connections are used for
request and reply.
I think microsoft calls this duplex mode in wcf. In this case HTTP would
work like JMS. I am not sure if this modeis relevant in java but it
could be used in one of the ws* specs.
Another thing are the Executors and Workqueues. The current spring
versions already provide this functionality. Do you think it is possible
to switch to
the spring implementations and remove this code from cxf?
Nope. CXF needs to work for the "normal" usecases (JAX-WS/SOAP/HTTP) without
spring. That said, we could augment it to allow the spring things to be
used instead if available/configured.
Hmm I understand that it is not always necessary to use a spring
context. But wouldn´t it be better to let a more generic framework like
spring solve things like Executors and Workqueues?
Greetings
Christian
--
Christian Schneider
---
http://www.liquid-reality.de
