Hi Dan,
how about having a real small API. Currently the cxf api consists of 41
and has a about 10k lines of code (without comments).
I don´t understand why things like transport.http or
messsage.MessageImpl and message.ExchangeImpl have to be inside API. The
same for wsdl.JAXBExtensionHelper, the whole ws.adressing and ws.policy
stuff. I would even doubt that the wsdl package is necessary. Of course
this is more something for cxf 3 ;-)
An even more radical idea would be to define an API around the core of
cxf, camel and servicemix and make this the basis of all three products.
Things like Exchange and Message would belong there. I don´t know
exactly how the scope could be set but I have the feeling that the core
ideas are more or less the same in the three products. A common API
would perhaps even make it possible to share transports, frontends and
databindings with camel and servicemix. Basically I don´t think it is
necessary to have separate http and jms transports in cxf, camel and
servicemix. In fact they do almost the same. This could allow CXF to
focus more on the ws specifications.
Greetings
Christian
Am 25.01.2010 22:53, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
That was the original "goal" of the api module, but it hasn't worked out very
well. Part of it is due to the "common-utilities" module which is really
"other api's that really should have just been part of API". Another part is
the tooling API's are completely separate as well (tools-common) so there are
at least 3 "api" modules.
The other problem we hit, (it's our own fault, only us to blame) is that we
properly put the interfaces and such in api, but when we wrote the impls, we
put them in the same package name, but in rt-core or the other modules. This
REALLY prevents us from doing any real OSGi stuff other than the big bundle.
The proposal wouldn't really fix that though. If api and rt/core are merged,
SOME will be fixed, but not all of it.
Another issues is that API is really "too large" now, particularly now that we
have the JAX-RS stuff. There is a bunch of "ws specific" things in API that
really aren't needed for JAX-RS and bring in deps that really are
"questionable". Example, why would JAX-RS need wsdl4j? That's another
concern we have to at least consider and see if it's something that can be
fixed or not. (possibly not, in which case we live with it and move on)
I'm not very familiar with the CXF internals, so I don't know if the
api/rt-core separation in CXF reflects that distinction between public
API and internal classes, but if it does, I would suggest not to make
the same mistake as Axis2.
:-)
Dan
Andreas
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 21:32, Daniel Kulp<[email protected]> wrote:
I'd like everyone's thoughts on some ideas I have to do some minor
restructuring for 2.3. I'm just throwing this out there as some ideas.
We don't need to do any of this if people disagree or would find it
annoying or similar. I just want peoples thoughts....
1) We have a bunch of xjc plugins in common/xjc that really never change.
There really isn't a reason to have a 2.3 version and a 2.2.6 version and
such. They are pretty much completely shareable. Thus, I'm thinking
of creating an "xjc-plugins" sub-project to house these. We could just
release them once and re-use them until new plugins are needed/created.
common/xsd (our xjc wrapper maven plugin) would probably go there as
well.
2) Likewise, buildtools and maven-plugins/xml2fastinfoset-* are really
RARELY changed. I'd like to have a "build-tools" subproject for these
type things. This is partially to support (1) above so the checkstyle
rules and such are more shareable, but it also would remove a few modules
from the build.
3) Most radical idea: I'd like to merge what's left in common/* after
(1) into api. Possibly also merge parts or all of rt/core into API.
If we do that, possibly just rename api to "cxf-kernel" or make it
cxf-core or similar. common-utilities, api, and core are really not
useable without each other at all. You cannot do much without all three
so merging them together seems to make some sense. POSSIBLY
tools-common as well. I need to look into that one a bit more. We
COULD potentially move some stuff OUT of api/rt-core that is more ws
specific (like the wsdl manager stuff) and into a ws-core or something
that wouldn't be needed for JAX-RS. Not sure how much of an impact that
would have.
Doing 3 MAY allow better OSGi support as we really would have a "kernel"
with pretty much EVERYTHING else being plugins into our kernel.
There will be a slight build speedup as less modules are built and less
calls to checkstyle and such, but nothing major as a majority is in the
systests. Now that we've gone with Surefire 2.5, I MAY experiment with
the parallel setting on a couple of the module, probably cannot on the
systests though.
Now, the MAIN drawback from all this would be merging fixes to 2.2.x is
going to be much harder in those modules. I think that would mostly
affect me though.
Anyway, I'd like to know what people think about all this.
--
Daniel Kulp
[email protected]
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
--
Christian Schneider
---
http://www.liquid-reality.de
