camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aki Yoshida <>
Subject Re: thoughts on the camel-websocket component
Date Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:23:54 GMT
Hi Charles,

If we only support jetty, that will be fine. But to support tomcat, we
need a component that avoids using jetty's websocket API directly.
In this aspect, camel-cxf is different because its servlet is not
web-container specific and can also be used in a gemini/tomcat based
OSGi environment, as long as there is a mechanism for its servlet to
get registered. So there is this decoupling to the web container

Going for atmosphere will provide a similar decoupling.

regards, aki

2013/9/10 Charles Moulliard <>:
> Hi Aki,
> As the camel-websocket component uses Jetty + WebSocket servlet of Jetty,
> that should not be a big change to add a property for the endpoint to
> request that we use Jetty deployed in Karaf, Felix, ... instead of creating
> a local jetty instance. This is what we do with camel-cxf endpoint
> Regards,
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Aki Yoshida <> wrote:
>> I have been looking into the websocket component and  I was wondering
>> about a few things.
>> First of all, I would like to make the component use the framework's
>> servlet if it's running in e.g., an OSGi container like karaf that has
>> jetty or another container that uses geminiweb/tomcat. I was using
>> Atmosphere to have the framework's servlet container picked up in both
>> environments.
>> I saw ticket CAMEL-5353 "camel-atmosphere - A new component for
>> portable websocket integration" and this seems to imply the
>> introduction of a new atmosphere specific component that might go
>> beyond the websocket functionality. Or is this intended for just a new
>> websocket component? I think Claus created this ticket when there was
>> a question in the mailing list about making the component work with
>> tomcat. I don't know its scope and status  and if someone is working
>> on this.
>> Another thing I was wondering about is that we should also have a
>> client-side websocket so that we can post data to an external
>> websocket. As the current websocket's producer mode writes back to the
>> server side websocket, we will need a new syntax for this usage, maybe
>> using the ws URL. This could be used in both the producer and consumer
>> modes as in the websocket component.
>> If you could comment on this, that would be very appreciated.
>> Thanks.
>> regards, aki
> --
> Charles Moulliard
> Apache Committer / Architect @RedHat
> Twitter : @cmoulliard | Blog :

View raw message