Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of cschneider111@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender)
Sender: Christian Schneider <cschneider111@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5423C97F.1080007@die-schneider.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:51:27 +0200
From: Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to handle "applications" in OSGi that offer / consume cxf
 services and want to enforce application level rules
References: <5422BC21.5070204@die-schneider.net> <5422C35A.2060809@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5422C35A.2060809@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Having one servlet per bundle would definately work.
I see two problems though:
- Each servlet has its own base path where all services reside then. Not 
necessarily a bad thing but it would limit the freedom of the user to 
define where his endpoints live.
- Added configuration overhead and complexity: Each of the bundles has 
to be a web application bundle with a web config and servlet definition.

I have a slightly different idea that would also help with 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-5410 .

How about giving each servlet a name and refer the name in the endpoint 
uri. like servlet:servletname/path. This would make the endpoint uri 
more self describing and also
nearer to the camel syntax. Using such a uri the user could even have 
one bundle that exposes endpoints to two different servlet if he needs. 
We could still keep the uri /path for compatibility which would
map to the default servlet. So people do not have to change their uris 
right now.

See the wiki page for details: 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CXF/Grouping+bundles+to+applications+in+OSGi

This scheme should work fine with the way we share the 
DestinationRegistry in OSGi. In fact I think I missed the chance to give 
the servlet a name in the original design of the servlet path.

WDYT ?

Christian


On 24.09.2014 15:12, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> On 24/09/14 13:42, Christian Schneider wrote:
>> I would like to deploy two (or more) CXF based applications into the
>> same OSGi framework.
>> How can I enforce common rules per application while keeping the
>> applications separate from each other?
>>
>> I created a wiki page to show the scenario and describe current
>> approaches I found and their limitations as well as an idea for a new
>> approach.
>> I would be happy about any feedback. Did you have a similar case? How
>> did you solve it?
>
> Re the application example at the wiki, what about having 4 war 
> bundles, each containing its own servlet with n endpoints, as per the 
> text "Each of the above bundles would like to offer and consume 0..n 
> cxf services".
>
> As per the common configuration, the HTTP context to which these 
> servlets are bound can have some base common configuration.
>
> Furthermore, each servlet would have its own configuration shared by 
> those n endpoints bound to this servlet.
>
> Finally, each CXF servlet can have a bus parameter injected into it, 
> so this is the extra opportunity to share the parameters among the 
> group of endpoints (via the bus, as you mentioned)
>
> Sergey

-- 
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de

Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com