cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Diephouse" <...@envoisolutions.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Client and Conduit changes
Date Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:13:45 GMT
For me the important point is that there will be many people writing or
trying to learn about the Conduit/Destination interfaces. Many more than
those who will be learning about the internals of the Client class. So it
makes sense to try and simplify the Conduit/Destination contracts as much as
possible. Additionally, if we keep things the way they are I think we'll be
forced to complicate them even more ala the introduction of a ConduitPolicy
class.

Eoghan raised the case where someone is not using the Client and doing
invocations, but I think we've established that there is no undue burden
placed on the user to set up decoupled endpoints. The amount of code is
approximately the same and xml configuration still works well with it.

- Dan

On 3/27/07, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Just to jump in here....
>
> I haven't had the time to grok all the details of all the proposals and
> stuff, but I have to say one thing:
>
> IMO, the current transport API's/etc...  are way to complex.   The
> decoupled cases and partial messages and stuff have polluted that layer
> too much.    All of that makes writing new transports much harder than
> it should be.
>
> Thus, if Dan's proposal simplifies that, I'm completely +1 for it.
>
>
> Sometime, I'd like to take some time and re-read all of this, but that
> requires a bit of time I just don't have right now.    :-(
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Friday 16 March 2007 18:19, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> > For those of you who haven't been following the long discussion Eoghan
> > and I have been having, I'm going to take a moment to summarize my
> > proposal here. I consider it rather important. If we don't reach any
> > consensus on the proposal (it sucks/doesn't suck) or if Eoghan & I are
> > the only ones who participate, I'll probably start a vote. So do your
> > communal duty and participate so I don't have to do that! :-)
> >
> > I propose the following:
> >
> > 1. API to set an Asynchronous EndpointReference
> > I believe we should create a simple method on the Client which allows
> > the user to specify the asynchronous endpoint that they wish to have
> > used for decoupled responses:
> >
> > Client.getAsynchronousEndpoint(EndpointReferenceType epr);
> >
> > The Client would check to see if this EPR was set. If so, it would
> > call DestinationFactory.getDestination(epr) for the EPR and use that
> > as the asynchronous destination. This would result in a standard way
> > to automatically set up the decoupled destination when using the API.
> >
> > While it has been said that this isn't generic enough for JMS, I don't
> > agree. First, I believe that JMS will eventually get a self contained
> > IRI format which can be stuck in an EPR. We could even create our own
> > proprietary format. Second, JMS is an edge case. There are other
> > transports beside just JMS and HTTP, like XMPP or TCP or FTP which
> > work just fine with URIs. JMS is the odd ball in the sense that
> > historically it has needed stuff outside the EPR.
> >
> > 2. Access to the Conduits and Destinations
> > I would like to add the following methods to the Client:
> >
> > void setConduit(Conduit) - this allows a user to easily specify an
> > alternate Conduit.
> > void setAsynchronousDestination(Destination) - this allows a user to
> > easily specify a decoupled endpoint. It's address would be used for
> > WS-Addressing interactions. If no Async destination exists, then the
> > Client will only listen on the Conduit.
> > Destination getAsynchronousDestination() - utility method to easily
> > get the asynchronous destination
> >
> > 3. Client.close();
> > We need a way to shutdown the decouled endpoints (regardless of
> > whether or not #1 & #2 are adopted). I think there is pretty good
> > conensus we need a Client.close() method which will do this. It will
> > call getConduit().close() and getAsynchronousDestination().shutdown().
> >
> > (Ideally we'd like to be able to shut down RM at this same time. I'm
> > going to guess that this would require the addition of a client
> > lifecycle interface which allows RM to listen for Client.close(). This
> > is an issue no matter which route we go though, so I'll defer this
> > conversation for another thread)
> >
> > 4. Remove the setup of decoupled destinations from inside the Conduit
> > Currently, the Conduits are responsible for setting up the decoupled
> > destinations. We've already got a perfectly good API for creating
> > destinations, lets use it! Creating another API to create decoupled
> > destinations introduces inconsistencies into our APIs. Right now if
> > you want to create different endpoints for receiving ReplyTos and
> > FaultTos you have configure the ReplyTos using the Conduit API and the
> > FaultTos using the destination API. Creating those endpoints in
> > different ways is bad IMO.
> >
> > Putting in decoupled destinations inside the Conduit also makes it
> > more complex for transport writers or people trying to understand the
> > API. IMO, people intuitively expect this to be outside the Conduit
> > class.
> >
> > 5. Client Configuration
> > I would propose that we make the decoupled destination configuration
> > part of the Client
> >
> > <jaxws:client id="...SomePort">
> >   <jaxws:asynchronousEndpoint>
> >     <wsa:Address>http://my.decoupled/endpoint</wsa:Address>
> >   </jaxws:asynchronousEndpoint>
> > </jaxws:client>
> >
> > <jaxws:client id="...SomePort">
> >
> > <jaxws:asynchronousDestination><http:destination...></jaxws:asynchrono
> >usDestination> </jaxws:client>
> >
> > As an added bonus, we can now wire together clients and destinations
> > however we want. I wouldn't *have* to create a <conduit> config
> > element with the port name inside it. Instead I could simply do:
> >
> > <jaxws:client id="...SomePort">
> >    <jaxws:conduit> <http:conduit... /> </jaxws:conduit>
> > </jaxws:client>
> >
> > It also creates a central place to embed Client configuration - such
> > as enabling MTOM or configuring WS-*:
> > <jaxws:client id="...SomePort">
> >    <jaxws:conduit>...</jaxws:conduit>
> >    <jaxws:binding mtomEnabled="true">
> >      <jaxws:requestContext>
> >        <map><entry key="javax.xml.ws.session.maintain"
> > value="true"/></map> </jaxws:requestContext>
> >    </jaxws:binding>
> >    <jaxws:features>
> >      <wsrm:reliability timeout="10000" .../>
> >    </jaxws:features>
> > </jaxws:client>
> >
> > Users could still use the <http:conduit id="PORT"/> syntax if they
> > wanted to though.
> >
> > (Note: I haven't written the jaxws:client Spring schema yet, but its
> > on my todo list. The feature stuff will hopefully be part of my commit
> > with WS-Security)
> >
> > 6. Bring back Destination.getDestination(EndpointReferenceType)
> > This method would be needed for the API that I propose in #1.
> >
> > 7. Make the JAX-WS dispatch use the client.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > In summary:
> > a) This simplifies the API. We've created an API to set up decoupled
> > endpoints easily. We've reduced the complexity inside Conduits and
> > have avoided introducing new complexity onto the Conduit interface to
> > specify a decoupled destination.
> >
> > b) It creates a consistent API for working with decoupled endpoints.
> > There is no reason to go writing a new API for setting up decoupled
> > endpoints - which is only used sometimes.
> >
> > c) Dependency Injenction: By putting the Conduit & Destination on the
> > Client we've made it much friendlier to people using Spring or other
> > DI containers.
> >
> > d) Improved configuration: I think the jaxws:client is a more natural
> > place to setup the conduit and destination configuration as opposed to
> > nesting the destination configuration inside the conduit.
> >
> > e) Setting up decoupled destinations is not the job of the conduit
> > IMO. We're giving Conduits a dual task unnecessarily. If all Conduits
> > share the same code for setting up decoupled destinations, that is a
> > sign to me that we can take it out of the Conduit.
> >
> > I of course would be volunteering to do all this work.
> > --
> >
> > Alternatives: While Eoghan can elaborate, I believe he would rather
> > see 1. The decoupled endpoint remain part of the conduit. He views a
> > decoupled endpoint as part of the Conduit contract.
> > 2. An API on the Conduit to set up the decoupled endpoint like so:
> > Client.get(Conduit.class
> > ).getClientPolicy().setDecoupledEndpoint(EndpointReferenceType)
> > 3. The Client.getConduit/setConduit methods go away and have the
> > Conduit be an optional part of the Client
> > 4. No Client.setAsynchronousDestination method.
> > 5. Keep the decoupled endpoint configuration as part of the conduit
> > instead of the client.
> >
> > Regards,
> > - Dan
>
> --
> J. Daniel Kulp
> Principal Engineer
> IONA
> P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194
> daniel.kulp@iona.com
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>



-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message