Hi Andrei
On 02/05/14 09:37, Andrei Shakirin wrote:
Hi Dan,
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2014 23:49
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Repackaging of cxf-api to remove Spring dependencies
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.
This is true, but the fact is that API classes we are sharing are not dependent
on Spring at all (they imports only java.*, cxf.message.*, ws.addressing.*
packages).
In this case, the Spring classes principally can be loaded from the individual
applications by their class loaders: Mandy made some experiments to achieve
that by repackaging cxf-api.jar.
Therefore splitting spring dependent classes from api / core would help here.
I have seen the similar situation in some other use cases as well: when users
would like to share Bus or ManagementComponent interfaces.
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.
Yes, this is a solution proposed by Christian - it definitely will work.
However our goal was to reuse existing LocalTransport mechanism, where
LocalConduit can see the LocalDestination registered for the endpoint. This
works perfectly, beside shared lib problem.
What about the idea of introducing specifically a CXF JNDI transport -
it would act as a 'Local' transport, except that it won't reuse the
existing LocalTransport but rather work with JNDI (presumably available
as a CXF independent shared library) ?
I'm rereading the thread, I wonder why would need cxf api in shared lib
at all now ? I actually thought Mandy created a CXF JNDITransport :-),
more or less a copy & paste of LocalTransport except that it has
JNDIConduit & JNDIDestination...
Cheers, Sergey
Regards,
Andrei.
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
