chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Wulff <>
Subject RE: CXF support as web services stack in opencmis
Date Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:40:47 GMT
Is the plan to release an opencmis 1.0 version as soon as cmis 1.1 is supported as well?

From: Florian Müller []
Sent: 22 March 2013 19:30
Subject: Re: CXF support as web services stack in opencmis

OpenCMIS doesn't rely on generic JAX-WS. It uses RI classes to make use
of certain features. We have never stated that it works with other
implementations and explicitly said that it doesn't work with CXF. We
even have specific packages for WebSphere and WebLogic to use their
native stacks.

The sad truth is that JAX-WS implementations behave so differently when
it comes to attachments and streaming that we need specific code for
each of them.

Most OpenCMIS users don't use the Web Services binding anyway and
therefore don't have an issue. The other bindings are significantly
faster and require fewer dependencies.

But I have to revisit the Web Services code anyway for the CMIS 1.1
implementation. There have to be some major code changes, if we don't
want a lot of duplicated code for CMIS 1.0 and CMIS 1.1. I will
reevaluate CXF for this.

- Florian

> On Mar 22, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Florian Müller<>  wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>> Thanks for the clarifications. The foundation of the OpenCMIS Web Services code has
been written in 2009. We evaluated CFX at this point and concluded that we have to go with
RI. CXF couldn't handle attachments in the way we needed it. It looks like a lot has changed
since then.
>> But even if the content is buffered in a temporary file, this is an issue - at least
on the client side. Two real world examples:
>> - There are business requirements not to store any confidential documents unencrypted
on a hard disk. A temporary file would violate this.
> Actually, CXF DOES have settings to allow the temp files to be completely encrypted.
>> - A document could be a 4GB video file. Apart from the performance penalty of buffering
it on disk, the client has to have enough free temp space.
> Yea.  That's still an issue.     That said, after thinking about it, I *THINK* (I'd have
to verify), that the last attachment is not buffered to disk, it remains streaming.   I don't
know enough about the CMIS stuff to know if multiple attachments are sent or not.
>> True content streaming is not a nice-to-have; it's a real requirement. Storing the
content on disks prevents Out Of Memory exceptions, but opens another can of worms.
> Right.   Going with the implementation specific API's is certainly the most reliable,
but the way OpenCMIS does that is not reliable.
>> We have seen OpenCMIS not working in CXF environments. Depending on the classloading,
setting the helps in some cases to coexist there. It's not a silver
bullet, though.
>> I'm not sure auto detection helps here. As a developer I want full control and either
I consciously flip a switch or deploy another Jar. Otherwise finding the cause of different
behaviors becomes rather difficult. I also have to know which dependency Jars I have to deploy
in the first place.
> If you need that level of control, you CANNOT rely on the JAX-WS API's (or generated
service objects actually).   You'd need to drop down to the implementations direct API's to
make sure you get the appropriate implementation.   Otherwise, you would always be relying
on things like classpath ordering and system properties and also opening up the possibility
to cause other applications running in the same VM to break.   For example, within Karaf (OSGi),
if CXF is installed first, you would ALWAYS be getting CXF.   Your /META-INF/... stuff would
not be looked at.   However, if your client bundle is installed first, you would break anything
that require CXF (unless they are using CXF's API's directly or spring or blueprint, which
admittedly is the recommend approach in OSGi).
>> As I already said, CXF support would be great. I had to work around a lot of RI quirks
to make it work for all OpenCMIS scenarios. My gut feeling tells me that CXF is just different
and still needs some extra work.
> "Different" is likely the right word.
> Dan
>> - Florian
>>> On Mar 21, 2013, at 7:31 PM, Florian Müller<>  wrote:
>>>> Hi Oliver,
>>>> It is not about MTOM and streaming. All JAX-WS frameworks can do that today.
It is about handling SOAP headers. The JAX-WS specification forces a JAX-WS implementation
to load the whole message (including attachments) in memory when the SOAP headers should be
>>> Actually, that's not true.   The JAX-WS specification does not
>>> dictate that.   It dictates that the entire SAAJ model must be
>>> created, but not that attachments need to be loaded into memory.
>>> Different JAX-WS stacks do different things with this.   I think the
>>> RI does resolve the MTOM stuff first which does load it in memory.
>>> For CXF, the attachments are pulled off the stream, but stored in tmp
>>> files on disk, not in memory.    The MTOM nodes are left "as is" in
>>> the SAAJ model.   Thus, you just get the contents of the SOAP part of
>>> the mime multipart in memory, not the full thing.
>>>> Therefore, the standard way of handling SOAP headers is not feasible for
OpenCMIS. One big document can easily cause an Out Of Memory exception. That's not a specific
problem of a specific JAX-WS implementation, but a JAX-WS specification problem and therefore
all implementations.
>>> No, not true.   That said, I'd still use the proprietary API's if
>>> just dealing with application level headers.   For the stuff Oli needs
>>> related to SAML and security, I'd let the stack handle it the way it
>>> needs to handle it.
>>>> All JAX-WS implementations have proprietary APIs to work around that. But
if the CXF WS-SecurityPolicies implementation (which I don't know) uses the standard APIs
then you probably will run into memory issues sooner or later. If you can handle that risk,
CXF might work for you.
>>> For CXF, we CURRENTLY would still need the full SAAJ model (but see
>>> above about the attachments) for the SOAP part.   We're working on a
>>> WSS4J 2.0 version that would allow streaming with WS-Security which
>>> would resolve even that issue.   That's a bit off though.
>>>> You are actually not the first, who wants to make CXF work. See this mail
>>>> Making it work is not the problem. Making it work without the danger of a
memory issue is difficult.
>>> There is nothing that the RI does to mitigate this that CXF doesn't also do.
>>>> Another reason why CXF is not our first choice is, that its needs Jars in
an endorsed directory. That's a deal-breaker for many projects that want to use OpenCMIS.
Today, OpenCMIS requires Oracles JAX-WS RI 2.1.7. This is not the latest version of JAX-WS
RI for the same reason. JAX-WS RI 2.2.x also needs Jars in an endorsed directory.
>>> Uhmm…   Another mis-conception.   If we required that, then CXF
>>> wouldn't work very well for anyone using Maven on Java 6.   :-)
>>> Seriously, CXF does not require anything to be endorsed unless you
>>> need the 2.2 specific API's and such.   If only the the 2.1 API's are
>>> found on the classpath and you only use the 2.1 API's, youi are fine.
>>> The CXF code generator by default does generate 2.2 code (per spec
>>> requirement).  However, we do have flags to have it generate 2.1
>>> restricted code.    Most of our examples now set that flag so they
>>> work "out of the box" without any sort of endorsed jars, even on
>>> java6.
>>>> I don't want to stop you from making it work. Having CXF support would be
great for OpenCMIS. So, please go ahead and provide a patch. But I don't see that CXF will
become our preferred stack in the future.
>>> I'm wondering if it would be all possible or preferable to have some
>>> level of auto detection of which stack is being used after the "new
>>> XYZService(…)" calls (or after the getXYZPort() calls) and handle the
>>> various things more automatically.   Right now, if the CXF jars are on
>>> the classpath prior to the Chemistry one, you would still end up using
>>> CXF anyway.
>>> Dan
>>>> - Florian
>>>>> Hi Florian
>>>>> Thanks for the feedback. CXF supports MTOM and streaming out-of-the-box
without any implementation specific dependencies. I think it should by quite easy to integrate
CXF as a web services stack in chemistry. The security part is then enforced by WS-SecurityPolicies
without a lot of API usage.
>>>>> I'll give it a try. Would you look into this if I raise a JIRA and apply
a patch including unit testing?
>>>>> Are there non resolvable issues do improve performance for the Web Services
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Oli
>>>>> ------
>>>>> Oliver Wulff
>>>>> Blog:
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: Florian Müller []
>>>>> Sent: 21 March 2013 12:38
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Cc: Oliver Wulff
>>>>> Subject: Re: CXF support as web services stack in opencmis
>>>>> Hi Oliver,
>>>>> There is no active development around CXF support at the moment (see
>>>>> [1] why).
>>>>> But what you want is a custom authentication provider [2]. The easiest
>>>>> way to build one is to copy the standard authentication provider code
>>>>> [3] and modify it. We (SAP) have implemented SAML support for our
>>>>> infrastructure. So that's doable. WS-Trust STS might be trickier, but
>>>>> certainly possible.
>>>>> Apart from that, you might want to consider using a different binding.
>>>>> The Web Services binding is pretty slow compared to the other two
>>>>> bindings.
>>>>> - Florian
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> [3]
>>>>>> Hi there
>>>>>> I'm looking into the usage of opencmis to interact with a CMS system.
>>>>>> This worked fine with basic security. Currently, username/password
>>>>>> supported with HTTP Basic Authentication or WS-Security
>>>>>> UsernameToken.
>>>>>> In our case, the CMIS client is deployed in a web application which
>>>>>> must sent requests on behalf of the web application user. So far,
>>>>>> used SAML and the WS-Trust STS which is supported by Apache CXF.
>>>>>> I've spotted the following class CXFPortProvider but it is not
>>>>>> active. Is there any other work ongoing in supporting CXF and any
>>>>>> other WS-Security tokens?
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Oli
View raw message