Hi Freeman
On 28/02/17 13:12, Freeman Fang wrote:
Hi Sergey,
Thanks for the detailed response.
I wanna add websocket transport with undertow because just like jetty, we have
http-jetty transport and we have websocket transport with jetty websocket
implementation.
We don't have a web socket transport with a Jetty web socket
implementation. We have a web socket transport which can use Atmosphere
and it is is not available - then *delegates* to a Jetty implementation
if it is available. Please have a look at the code.
And the most important thing is, this CXF web socket transport makes
sure that irrespectively of which WebSocket implementation is loaded it
does the proper formatting of the response and processing of the request
as per the CXF docs/tests/demos which is what you'd need to duplicate
somehow otherwise.
As we also have http-undertow transport and so have websocket transport with
undertow websocket implementation should make sense IMHO.
And yeah, the websocket transport with undertow websocket implementation should
be just as its counterpart, the websocket transport with jetty websocket
implementation do.
And yes, undertow implement JSR356, but I’m more looking at the embedded
undertow server which can support the websocket, not sure how the JSR356 code
can kick in here though.
If Undertow implements JSR356 then the CXF WebSocket Transport can or
should be able to load it which is what I was referring to.
For example, a CXF WebSocket demo works with Tomcat 7 but we do not have
any Tomcat code in CXF not we use Jetty in that case, see what I mean ?
If it gets fixed to work in Tomcat 8 then it will also work with
Undertow JSR356 which I expect to be effectively a wrapper around
Undertow internal WebSocket code. IMHO it is really worth pursuing.
Otherwise you'd have something like undertow_websocket which would
duplicate a fair bit of the existing CXF web socket transport code.
Think about it please, if we can avoid adding one more module by
enhancing the existing one and achieving the same result for CXF
endpoints using WebSocket on top of Undertow then it will be good IMHO...
You can try and go a new module route and add say a JAXRS Undertow
WebSocket test by copying one of the existing JAXRS web socket tests
on a new branch and we can discuss it further - I hope once you end up
doing it you will see why enhancing the existing Web Socket transport
may be better :-).
If we can have the existing transport enhanced to load JSR356s correctly
then we can get rid of the Jetty delegation code, have only Atmosphere
linking to Tomcat/Jetty/Netty/Undertow JSR356s...
Sergey
Best Regards
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
On Feb 28, 2017, at 6:38 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Freeman
On 27/02/17 23:44, Freeman Fang wrote:
Hi Team,
We have websocket transport in CXF for a while, I wanna know how wide is this
used by CXF users, if this is widely used, is it feasible to also add undertow
websocket implementation in CXF?
The existing CXF web socket transport is meant to support JAX-RS flows over
WebSocket given that the JSR356 API is not synchronized to either JAX-RS or
JAX-WS at all. Please check systests/jaxrs WebSockets tests.
I do not remember Aki trying it with JAXWS but with a bit of the extra work it
will work with JAXWS too.
Aki started documenting it here:
http://cxf.apache.org/docs/websocket.html
and I recall we were discussing enhancing the transport for it to load the
custom bindings to support SOAP etc
This transport uses Atmosphere if it is available and was tested with Tomcat 7
and Jetty, Tomcat 8 was problematic due to the issues with the way JSR356
implementation was picked up. Otherwise, if Jetty is available, it tries to use
the Jetty implementation... This transport will work side by side with either
the HTTP Servlet or Http Jetty transports.
Users are asking and trying it now and then not sure how widely it is used but
it has to be supported IMHO and enhanced (custom bindings. etc).
As far as the Undertow WebSocket implementation is concerned, why would you
like to get it into CXF ?
If it can support the JAXRS flows and possibly JAXWS flows the way the current
transport can then why not, but IMHO this should be a prerequisite, given that CXF
transports are here to support JAXWS & JAXRS.
The other question is, does Undertow implement JSR356 ? If yes then
may be a better idea would be to fix the existing CXF websocket transport to
correctly load JSR356 code, which would make it work with the Undertow or
Tomcat8 etc JSR356 code.
Thanks, Sergey
Any input is appreciated.
Thanks!
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
