Hi Sergey, This is a cool proposal and I think both projects, CXF and Olingo, can profit from such an activity.
I had a look into [1] and [2] and see a proximity to OData which has a URI based query syntax which us parsed by Olingo and ends up into a abstract syntax tree to be traversed by the visitor pattern as well. To get a better understanding about what should be achieved can you please give a use case just for example? To start the effort in a CXF context is fine and it can later be decided to have a substantial contribution into Olingo. That is a standard procedure for Apache projects, right? If you have detailed questions to Olingo then do not hesitate to query our mailing list. Greetings, Stephan [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-atompub-fiql-00 [2] http://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-rs-search.html On 02.12.13 12:21, "Sergey Beryozkin" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, >On 29/11/13 17:40, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: >> Hi Olingo Team, >> >> I'm interested in getting OData directly supported in Apache CXF, please >> see [1]. >> >> CXF offers its own Search API which currently supports Feed Item Query >> Language (FIQL). It works similar to the way Olingo works, a FIQL parser >> parsers a FIQL expression and users register so called search visitors >> which adapt the parsed expression to other query languages such as SQL, >> etc. >> >> IMHO supporting OData directly with CXF Search API with the help of >> Olingo will be really nice. It will help CXF users to get a better >> understanding of OData and perhaps will encourage them to work more with >> Olingo in cases where a CXF Olingo-based solution will prove limiting as >> suggested at [1]. >> >> After thinking about this for a while, it appears to me that perhaps we >> should simply start the work in CXF and start asking questions on Olingo >> users or dev lists and may be offer some patches if needed and if the >> analysis will prove implementing [1] is realistic. >> >> I'd like to ask however: do you reckon it might make sense to do it in >> Olingo itself ? For example, we'd create a new Maven tree, example, >> /integration/cxf and work there. Perhaps that can be distracting for the >> core Olingo effort, so for now I'm inclined to do it at CXF level, >> >Note, if the team decides that the Olingo project can actually 'host' >the CXF or other Olingo-based 3rd party extensions then as far as we are >concerned we can move a CXF wrapper to Olingo immediately. > >What I'd like to say is that we can start experimenting with Olingo >first, ask questions, do patches if needed, and once we have a CXF >Olingo wrapper working we can update this thread and solicit some >feedback on where we'd be better off hosting it. > >Hope it sounds reasonable:-) > >Thanks, Sergey > > >> Comments are welcome >> Thanks, Sergey >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-5430 > >
