Mailing-List: contact cxf-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of daniel.kulp@iona.com
 designates 65.223.216.181 as permitted sender)
From: Daniel Kulp <daniel.kulp@iona.com>
Organization: IONA
To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Some change about the CXF Servlet
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:35:48 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
References: <45C68801.8020500@iona.com>
 <200702042138.39998.daniel.kulp@iona.com> <45C6B516.5050508@iona.com>
In-Reply-To: <45C6B516.5050508@iona.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200702051135.49105.daniel.kulp@iona.com>

On Sunday 04 February 2007 23:39, Willem Jiang wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Yes,  If we expose too much detail to the user , it will be painful for
> us when we are doing the refactoring stuff.
>
> Current CXF Servlet refactoring just make the Servlet decouple with the
> jaxws front end. In this way the servlet need to get to know which
> publisher implementing could be used in the servlet.
> We can take the publisher as the transport factory and load different
> publisher by the namespace which is defined in the cxf-servlet.xml.

Honestly, I have no idea what you just said here.

> But we also need to write the servlet class name in Web.xml. Can we make
> it parent to the user ? 

This is mostly because we try to make the war completely app-server 
independent.   There are ways to register a context listener (or something, 
don't remember exactly what.  Tuscany does it.) with tomcat that would allow 
the war to not have the web.xml at all.   All that would be needed is the 
cxf-servlet.xml file.   

That said, the web.xml is a straight copy from the one in etc.   The user 
doesn't have to touch it to get their app working.   They don't need to even 
know there is a classname in there.


> Here is another thought that CXF Servlet also support create the service
> by Spring configuration xml.  I think we also need to make it
> sophisticated to support different front-end.

I'd definitely be OK with this as long as we go the Spring 2.0 route that Dan 
has been doing so it's relatively clean looking and not so "springy".

Just FYI: the current format for the cxf-servlet.xml file was used as it's 
completely compatible with the JAX-WS RI.   If you take the sun-jaxws.xml 
from a JAX-WS RI app and rename it to cxf-servlet.xml and change the web.xml 
to ours, the apps are supposed to work.  (within the limits of the parts of 
jax-ws that we currently have working).     If we add the "publisher" or 
anything to it to distinguish the frontend, we're going to break that anyway.   
We might as well go a clean route and use the schema and the Spring 2.0 
stuff.

Dan


> Cheers,
>
> Willem.
>
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >On Sunday 04 February 2007 20:27, Willem Jiang wrote:
> >>2. cxf-servlet.xml
> >>Adding a publisher attribute in the endpoint element.
> >>It should be publisher="org.apache.cxf.jaxws.EndpointPublisherImpl"
> >>
> >>You can find the example from the systest or the kit's samples
> >> hello_world . Please feel free to  get  touch with me  if you  have any
> >> issue about the CXF  Servlet.
> >
> >I really don't like this part of this.   You end up forcing people to
> > embed internal class names into the XML file and thus know internal
> > details about the implementations.  It also prevents us from refactoring
> > things, renaming classes, etc... without breaking the users apps.
> >
> >This needs to change to some sort of registry system where the frontends
> > can register a handler to the servlet/bus and the XML just has some sort
> > of key for the XML.   I'd prefer a namespace qualified thing where the
> > frontend could provide an entire schema for their section of the XML.   
> > If the frontend needs some additional elements in the XML file, they can
> > do it.

-- 
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com