On May 1, 2014, at 3:22 PM, Andrei Shakirin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dan, > > I was not really happy with the problem described by Mandy: > to have some API classes available for more than one application > (Destination, Conduit and AbstractTransportFactory in that case) we need to > share whole Spring dependencies as well. The problem is that you would need to stick a bunch of other things into the shared space depending on what you need to do. For example, if you want to handle fastinfoset services, you would need to put the fastinfoset jar into the shared area. You need xmlschema in the shared area. Woodstox is needed in the shared area. With 2.x, you would need wsdl4j.jar, etc…. Basically, if you are going to share parts of CXF, you really need to share the dependencies of CXF as well, that includes spring. Personally, I think for this case, there should be a jar in the shared area that handles the communication between wars and such that has NO dependency on CXF at all. Not destination, not conduit, etc… A CXF Destination/Conduit/etc…. would depend on that, but it would live in the individual apps that need it. Dan > Therefore I find the idea to separate spring and blueprint dependent classes > great and very useful. > > @Sergey: I think the most important is to extract bus.spring.* and > configuration.spring.* classes, often used to instantiate bus, servers and > proxies from spring configuration. Spring AOP + Class scanner are not so > critical from my perspective. > > Regarding the release: of course, would be nice to have this in 3.0.0, but > agree with Sergei that it is a big change requiring additional tests > (especially for OSGi), documentation updates, migration guides. > My +1 for pursue it in 3.1.0. > > Regards, > Andrei. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2014 18:03 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Repackaging of cxf-api to remove Spring dependencies >> >> >> I decided to try and experiment a bit with this idea. Just pushed a >> "split-spring" >> branch for folks to look at. >> >> Basically, I did a few things: >> >> 1) Pulled bus/spring and configuration/spring into a new rt/spring bundle >> 2) Pulled bus/blueprint and configuration/blueprint (and related blueprint >> only >> schemas) into a new rt/aries-blueprint bundle >> 3) updated all the poms/features.xml to pull them (optional for cxf-spring >> and >> provided+optional for cxf-aries-blueprint) >> >> Cuts the core jar by about 105K. >> >> This does result in cxf-core not having any blueprint/aries deps at all. >> The >> other bundles do, but core doesn't. Core still has a couple of spring deps >> though. There is the SpringBeanFactory invoker thing, the helper for dealing >> with AOP classes, and the new classpath scanning stuff. The >> SpringBeanFactory could be moved to cxf-spring if we change the >> @FactoryType annotation a bit so "Spring" is not one of the core types. Not >> a >> big deal. The AOP handling and classpath scanning stuff would be a bigger >> issue though. >> >> >> So, the question is, do we want to pursue this further for 3.0 or not? For >> spring users, they would need to add cxf-spring to the deps (minor) update >> and >> they would save about 40K due to lack of the aries stuff. For non-spring >> users, >> they could save 105K in space. We'd certainly need to go back and retest >> the >> samples and OSGi stuff which could be a big undertaking. >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 30, 2014, at 7:12 PM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Just about every jar that has any level of significantly configurable >> functionality in CXF has some classes in it that depend on spring. jaxws, >> jaxrs, >> http, ws-security, ws-policy, etc.... I certainly would NOT want to just >> about >> double the number of jars/modules we have to deal with to pull spring out of >> everything and into separate jars. >>> >>> That said, spring should be completely optional. If the spring jars are not >> there, CXF should be able to detect that and work fine without it (minus all >> the >> xml configuration and the JMS transport). >>> >>> With 3.0, it's even a bit more complicated as API is gone and merged with >> cxf-rt-core into just cxf-core. Would definitely need to play more to >> figure out >> what spring stuff could even be pulled out there successfully. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Mandy Warren <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am working on a new transport which will look very much like >>>> LocalTransport but use JNDI to register the destinations. The idea is >>>> that this will allow for war-war comms on a single thread with only a >>>> very minimal set of jars on the system classpath. >>>> >>>> I've successfully prototyped this and run the initial code past >>>> Andrei, I am now trying to productionise it so I can get this groups >>>> feedback as to whether it could be a useful addition to CXF. >>>> >>>> One thing which my solution requires is for the Spring dependencies >>>> in cxf-api to be moved into their own jar. This way, all I require on >>>> the shared classpath is the cut down cxf-api and not all the Spring >>>> libraries. >>>> >>>> I was wondering whether you would consider this repackaging as an >>>> option for a future release? There are only a very small amount of >>>> classes which would need to be moved, namely those in >>>> cxf/api/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/configuration/spring >>>> >>>> Many thanks >>>> >>>> Mandy >>>> <https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/cxf> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Kulp >>> [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - >>> http://coders.talend.com >>> >> >> -- >> Daniel Kulp >> [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - >> http://coders.talend.com > -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
