Hi Sergey, Dan, Thanks for your feedback. I will try out a few things and try to get more clear feeling concretely for the CXF case and how things will look. regards, aki
2013/12/11 Daniel Kulp <[email protected]>: > > Honestly, I’d likely just stick it in Jetty and -hc as the implementation > would be bound to those two implementations. If at some point in the future > there is enough interest in adding additional implementations, we could pull > it out into a common module or something. > > That’s just my opinion though. :-) > > Dan > > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Aki Yoshida <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> I worked on the camel transport using atmosphere for the server-side >> and async-http-client for the client-side. >> I got stuck at the point in naming the components or putting this >> behavior into one of the existing components. >> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Re-update-of-websocket-td5742842.html >> >> For cxf, it makes sense to offer the websocket transport and somer >> people asked me already. >> I think, implementation-wise, it is straightforward. >> But we just have the same question of whether to have a separate >> transport or having it as a separate transport (e.g., ws) or an option >> in one of the existing ones (e.g, in http-hc for the client part and >> http or http-jetty or a new http-atmosphere for the server-side). >> >> I think both arguments have some points. >> Making a separate transport makes the code simpler to implement >> websocket functionality and also keeps its configuration simple. >> But the component is bound to one specific implementation and if >> someone wants a specific underlining implementation that is different >> from the one used, s/he will need an implementation specific component >> instead. But an implementation specific component that already >> provides its own transfer mode, adding a websocket mode makes it more >> complicated and so as its configuration. >> >> So, I would like to hear more opinions here. >> >> thanks. >> regards, aki >> >> >> >> >> 2013/12/11 Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]>: >>> Hi >>> >>> On 11/12/13 12:08, António Mota wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all. >>>> >>>> Does CXF 3.0-M supports Websockets and Server-sent Events? I read the >>>> migration but couldn't find any info. >>>> >>> We only have this JIRA so far >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-5339 >>> >>> Aki is doing some work directly in Camel - please check it too; >>> >>> Though IMHO having it supported in CXF at some minimum level should also be >>> done eventually >>> Sergey >>> >>>> Cheers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * Melhores cumprimentos / Beir beannacht / Best regards * >>>> *______________________________________________________* >>>> >>>> *António Manuel dos Santos Mota <http://gplus.to/amsmota>* >>>> *http://www.linkedin.com/in/amsmota* <http://www.linkedin.com/in/amsmota> >>>> *______________________________________________________* >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sergey Beryozkin >>> >>> Talend Community Coders >>> http://coders.talend.com/ >>> >>> Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >
