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 eoghan.glynn@iona.com
 designates 62.221.12.33 as permitted sender)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Duplication in http2 module
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:17:18 -0000
Message-ID: <FA1787F64A095C4090E76EBAF8B183E071FBCE@owa-emea.iona.com>
Thread-Topic: Duplication in http2 module
Thread-Index: AcdEI1F2EzTyLMHITHGkw6DCIcsWTgAXH3QAABYUA7EAC9ypsAEK33WxAABKaFA=
From: "Glynn, Eoghan" <eoghan.glynn@iona.com>
To: <cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org>


Well I think the original logic was that the Jetty6 SSL support is in a
pre-alpha state, so isn't suitable as a straight replacement for Jetty5.
Hence the motivation for maintaining support for both Jetty5 and 6 for a
transition period.

BTW I'm not sure if the Jetty6 SSL really is still that unstable ... at
least the mortbay.org download page, the 6.1 version has the status
"Stable" and mentions "Async SSL" in the notes.
=20
So before we waste any cycles on figuring out how to allow Jetty 5 & 6
peacefully co-exist, I think it would be worth investing some effort in
establishing definitively the stability or otherwise of Jetty6 SSL.

Now if Jetty6 is still considered unstable, then we'd have to come up
with some (e.g. class-loading) cleverness to allow selective loading of
the Jetty 5 or 6 artefacts. Fortunately the Jetty 5 and 6 APIs expose
different classes to our code (e.g. SslListener versus
SslSelectChannelConnector), so that should simply things at compile time
at least.

If on the other hand, we were happy enough to drop support for Jetty5,
this would simplify matters. For one thing, it would allow the HTTP code
to be restructured to take more advantage of the non-blocking aspects of
Jetty6 (see my previous mail[1] for more detail).

However if we do drop Jetty5 support, before just replacing the http
module with http2, its important to do an audit to ensure that all
changes applied to the http module since the advent of the duplicated
http2 module have also been reflected in the latter. Having to do this
sort of thing is another downside of the whole duplication approach.

Cheers,
Eoghan


[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cxf-dev/200612.mbox/%
3cFA1787F64A095C4090E76EBAF8B183E071FB38@owa-emea.iona.com%3e =20


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lin, Bozhong [mailto:Bozhong.Lin@iona.com]=20
> Sent: 05 February 2007 14:37
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org; cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Duplication in http2 module
>=20
> So I just want to follow up a question on this discussion. If=20
> we agreed to refactor code according to the discussion, what=20
> this will have impact on packaging? i.e., are we going to=20
> ship both jetty5 and jetty 6? or by default we just ship=20
> jetty5 and let user download jetty6 if they want jetty6 support?
>=20
> Regards,
> Bo
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glynn, Eoghan [mailto:eoghan.glynn@iona.com]
> Sent: Wed 1/31/2007 2:27 AM
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Duplication in http2 module
> =20
> =20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jiang, Ning [mailto:Ning.Jiang@iona.com]
> > Sent: 31 January 2007 02:01
> > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Duplication in http2 module
> >=20
> >=20
> > Hi Eoghan,
> >=20
> > Thank you for your reply.=20
> >=20
> > You suggested to put the http2 into another branch which will not=20
> > effect the main line. It is easy to do in ClearCase. But
> > in svn, the branch is just a static copy from the mainline.  =20
> > My question is if I put the http2 into a branch, when the mainline=20
> > transport code had be changed, how can I sync these=20
> mainline's changes=20
> > to the branch?
>=20
> Well the synching up would be a manual process, as it is now=20
> with http2 on the mainline but completely separate from the=20
> main http module.
>=20
> > Now we are working on pull the common transport logic to=20
> the abstract=20
> > Destination and Conduit. So there is another option, we=20
> just move the=20
> > Jetty6 support code into the http module , then we can get ride of=20
> > http2 module.
>=20
> Sure, that would be the preferred option, and basically I was=20
> originally advocating such a merge into a single http module=20
> (as long as the duplication is also properly addressed).
>=20
> The idea would be factor out the common logic into abstract=20
> base classes, and then provide pluggable API-specific=20
> components for Jetty5, Jetty6, and Servlet.
>=20
> But IIRC you didn't want to do this refactoring as the Jetty6=20
> stuff was still pre-alpha and hence not suitable use in the=20
> main http module. So the option to move to a branch was a=20
> second choice alternative.
>=20
> Cheers,
> Eoghan
>=20
> > Cheers,
> >=20
> > Willem.
> >=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Glynn, Eoghan [mailto:eoghan.glynn@iona.com]
> > Sent: Tue 1/30/2007 23:03
> > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Duplication in http2 module
> > =20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Willem Jiang [mailto:ning.jiang@iona.com]
> > >Sent: Tue 1/30/2007 4:00 AM
> > >To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >Subject: Duplication in http2 module
> > >=20
> > >Hi Eoghan,
> > >
> > >The original thought to add the module http2 was we can replace the
> > >Jetty5 with new NIO support Jetty6, than we  can replace
> > http  module
> > >with http.
> > >Unfortunately when I finished the porting , I found the Jetty6 ssl
> > stuff
> > >is still in a pre-alpha state. So I can move http2 to http.
> > >
> > >There are some my random thoughts about the http2 module.
> > >
> > >1.  making the http transport decouple with the detail Http
> > Transport
> > >engines.
> > >In this way ,we can share the common http transport logical
> > code with
> > >the different Http Transport engines.
> > >So the CXF can support tomcat , Jetty5 , Jetty6 to provide the=20
> > >standalone web services.
> >=20
> > Yes, the whole point is that much of the logic in the=20
> servlet, Jetty5-=20
> > and Jetty6-based HTTP transports is actually common to all=20
> three and=20
> > hence is sharable via abstract base classes.
> >=20
> > I'd already raised a JIRA issue
> > (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-343) to remove the=20
> > duplication from the servlet transport. A similar=20
> unification approach=20
> > could also be used for the Jetty5 and Jetty6-based HTTP transports.
> >=20
> > >2. If we want to support Jetty5 and Jetty6 in the same http
> > transport
> > >module, how can we achieve it.
> >=20
> > Simply by encapsulating all usage of Jetty-version-specific=20
> APIs into=20
> > pluggable components.
> >=20
> > >In Jetty <=3D5, there was an API for pure Jetty HTTP requests and=20
> > >responses. The Jetty requests and responses where wrapped by the=20
> > >ServletHandler to provide the Servlet API for requests and=20
> responses.
> > >In Jetty 6, all requests and responses are based on the=20
> Servlet APIs=20
> > >requests and responses.
> >=20
> > Sure the APIs are slightly different, but that doesn't=20
> prevent sharing=20
> > all the code that actually is common.
> >=20
> > Now the refactoring job is made easier by the fact that the logic=20
> > common to *all* Destination implementations (i.e. both HTTP and=20
> > non-HTTP) is now factored out into an AbstractDestination class.=20
> > However, there's still plenty of duplicated and potentially=20
> sharable=20
> > logic in the three HTTP Destination implementations,  e.g.=20
> the logic=20
> > concerned with managing HTTP headers, acting on policies=20
> and setting=20
> > message properties.
> >=20
> > >May be we need different Jetty factory to create the detail=20
> > >JettyHTTPServerEngine and JettyHTTPDestionation which will
> > consume the
> > >different version's Jetty API.
> > >
> > >These will take some time to finish and we also need to=20
> wait for the
> > >Jetty6 SSL engine stable release. Eoghan, I agree we can put
> > the http2
> > >into the branch which will not take effect with the mail line.
> > >But I have no ideal how to sync the branch with the main=20
> line's http=20
> > >transport common logical. Can someone help me out ?
> >=20
> > I don't understand what exactly you're asking for help with.=20
> > Can you elaborate?
> >=20
> > Cheers,
> > Eoghan
> >=20
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >
> > >Willem.
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Glynn, Eoghan [mailto:eoghan.glynn@iona.com]
> > >Sent: Mon 1/29/2007 18:13
> > >To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >Subject: Duplication in http2 module [was RE: svn commit:=20
> r497869 -=20
> > >/incubator/cxf/trunk/rt/transports/http2/src/main/java/org/ap
> > ache/cxf/t
> > ransport/http/JettyHTTPDestination.java]
> > >=20
> > >
> > >Willem,
> > >
> > >The problem with keeping these modules separate is that
> > every change to
> > >the main http module has to be duplicated manually to the
> > http2 module
> > >which is time-consuming and error-prone.
> > >
> > >So if the http2 stuff is still in a pre-alpha state, then it
> > should be
> > >taken off the mainline onto a branch until its ready to=20
> either share=20
> > >common base classes with the core (Jetty5-based) http transport or=20
> > >replace it outright.
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >Eoghan
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Willem Jiang [mailto:ning.jiang@iona.com]
> > > > Sent: 19 January 2007 18:08
> > > > To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: svn commit: r497869 -=20
> > > > /incubator/cxf/trunk/rt/transports/http2/src/main/java/org/apa
> > > > che/cxf/transport/http/JettyHTTPDestination.java
> > > >
> > > > Hi Eoghan,
> > > >
> > > > The duplication in http transports is because I don't want the=20
> > > > development of the Jetty6 support takes effect to the
> > current code
> > > > base.
> > > >
> > > > Since Jetty6 's ssl support is in pre-alpha state , we
> > don't want to
> > > > replace Jetty5 with Jetty6 right now, I agree we can move
> > the Jetty6
> > > > supporting from rt-tranpsorts-http2 to rt-transports-http
> > to reduce
> > > > the duplication, and get CXF http-transport more flexible.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Willem.
> > > >
> > > > Glynn, Eoghan wrote:
> > > > > Hi Willem,
> > > > >
> > > > > Why all the duplication in rt-transports-http2?
> > > > >
> > > > > If we're going to keep the Jetty5-based rt-transports-http
> > > > stuff, then
> > > > > the two modules should be merged so as to avoid
> > duplication, with
> > > > > common code factored up into abstract base classes.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've raised an JIRA task for a similar refactoring of the=20
> > > > > duplication-heavy servlet code:
> > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-343
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Eoghan
> > > > >
> > > > >  =20
> > > > >>
> > >
> >=20
> >=20
>=20
>=20