cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: reduce CXF dependencies for JAXRS?
Date Sun, 09 Aug 2015 18:42:44 GMT
yeah I can get rid of woodstox (setting the prop is fine since I handle the
main(String[]) in the case we are speaking about).

xmlschema is < 200k so acceptable if hard to get rid of.

So to summarize: very nice work between 2.6/7 and 3 guys! thanks a lot.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com>

2015-08-09 11:21 GMT-07:00 Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>:

> Hi Romain
>
> Yes, as Dan mentioned, a major refactoring has been done in CXF 3.1.x.
> I'd say having xmlschema and woodstox dependencies is not a major problem.
> JAX-RS servers do not need the JAX-RS client implementation, though not yet
> the other way around, but now that we have client and server modules
> separate it is doable to have the client depending on the minimum/shared
> JAX-RS code...
>
> I think you can most likely drop a woodstox too, set a system property
> (use insecure parser which is fine if you do not use XML payloads). One
> point here is that JAX-RS requires supporting JAXB/XML, and I feel what is
> expected to work by default should work so without expecting a user to make
> sure it works - XML is still a fairly big 'thing' in many services so the
> users who use XML should start a CXF server and have it working. We can in
> principle use the built-in parser for that and save on a woodstox
> dependency - but its capability to restrict XML in a number of ways is a
> big plus (Colm had to release N number of security announcements to do with
> XML related attacks) so it is a good to dependency to have.
>
> Though as I said try setting an "org.apache.cxf.stax.allowInsecureParser"
> system property if you absolutely do not need Woodstox and you should have
> only 1 'extra' dep, XmlSchema which is very much needed by CXF and also by
> JAX-RS JAXB Provider if it is a validating one.
> You might be able to have the server starting without XMLSchema
> (JAXBProvider is created reflectively it if it can not be loaded it is
> ignored) - but as Dan mentioned you need to experiment and it can be
> brittle - the server starts but then fails somewhere at the runtime
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
>
>
> 07/08/15 21:28, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
>> Sure, that is why it is still a wish ;) but seems small CLI are more and
>> more common so decreasing the size would be good but doesnt need to be
>> done
>> now ;)
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
>> <http://www.tomitribe.com>
>>
>> 2015-08-07 13:25 GMT-07:00 Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:23 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> used an older version but xmlschema and woodstox removal would be good
>>>>
>>> (why
>>>
>>>> not recommanded if I dont use XML parsing?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> We use XML internally for various config things and setup stuff.   I
>>> really have no idea if CXF would even start properly without woodstox.
>>>   You’d have to try it.
>>>
>>> 95% sure it won’t work without xmlschema either.  Many cxf-core classes
>>> have xmlschema params/returns as part of the method signatures.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>
>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>
>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
>>>> <http://www.tomitribe.com>
>>>>
>>>> 2015-08-07 11:18 GMT-07:00 Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should be able to get rid of the wsdl stuff.    We pulled all
the
>>>>>>
>>>>> wsdl stuff out of core specifically for this reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> XmlSchema would definitely be required.  Way too much in core depends
>>>>>>
>>>>> on
>>>
>>>> that.    With 3.1.x, I’m not seeing a dependency on cxf-rt-bindings-xml
>>>>> either.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think with 3.1.x, the minimal for a client would be:
>>>>>
>>>>> [INFO] org.apache.cxf.samples:jax_rs_basic:jar:3.1.3-SNAPSHOT
>>>>> [INFO] +-
>>>>>
>>>> org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-transports-http:jar:3.1.3-SNAPSHOT:compile
>>>
>>>> [INFO] |  \- org.apache.cxf:cxf-core:jar:3.1.3-SNAPSHOT:compile
>>>>> [INFO] |     +-
>>>>>
>>>> org.codehaus.woodstox:woodstox-core-asl:jar:4.4.1:compile
>>>
>>>> [INFO] |     |  \- org.codehaus.woodstox:stax2-api:jar:3.1.4:compile
>>>>> [INFO] |     \-
>>>>> org.apache.ws.xmlschema:xmlschema-core:jar:2.2.1:compile
>>>>> [INFO] +-
>>>>>
>>>> org.apache.cxf:cxf-rt-frontend-jaxrs:jar:3.1.3-SNAPSHOT:compile
>>>
>>>> [INFO] |  \- javax.annotation:javax.annotation-api:jar:1.2:compile
>>>>> [INFO] +- javax.ws.rs:javax.ws.rs-api:jar:2.0.1:compile
>>>>>
>>>>> With some system settings, you could possibly remove woodstox, but that
>>>>> would be highly NOT recommended.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> just a very open idea for now but I think it would be great to
be
>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>> use CXF JAXRS client with a bit less dependencies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here the origin of the issue: I created several small "all in
one"
>>>>>>> jar
>>>>>>> recently mainly simplifying rest calls (let take a github or
jira
>>>>>>> REST
>>>>>>> client as sample if you want to see a concrete sample). Of course
I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> used
>>>
>>>> CXF for the JAXRS client - WebClient actually - and the only issue I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> got
>>>
>>>> was the size of the jar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my case I don't care about xml stuff (mainly use String as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> payloads)
>>>
>>>> so
>>>>>
>>>>>> wonder if we could get rid of wsdl, xmlschema, cxf-rt-bindings-xml
etc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> as
>>>>>
>>>>>> mandatory dependencies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wdyt?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>>
>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
>>>>>>> <http://www.tomitribe.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Kulp
>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

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