cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Beryozkin <sberyoz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Vert.x support
Date Fri, 09 Oct 2015 20:25:21 GMT
Hi
On 09/10/15 21:18, Canning, Charles wrote:
> Micheal,
>
> I cant answer the CXF portion, but i wanted to clarify one of your points.
>
> If you use CXF and a servlet container in async mode, then you can have an event io based
solution. We actually have it working in a reactive way.
>
> Just a possible solution. Hope this is useful.
Thanks - I was not exactly sure if it was related but this is what I was 
hoping to clarify from Michael, if JAX-RS AsyncResponse was relevant...

Thanks, Sergey
>
> Chuck
>
> From: Michael Putters
> Sent: 10/9/15, 11:09 AM
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Vert.x support
> Hello,
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd very interested in having JAX-RS annotations - and a CXF implementation
> for them - running within Vert.x, for two main reasons:
>
>
>
> 1.       the typical features you get from CXF (duh), with the possibility
> of doing operations asynchronously re-using the continuation mechanism
> already present
>
> 2.       to use Vert.x as a mostly-automated API gateway:
>
> a.       some of the back-end's micro services would be registered in the
> gateway (using the JAR that holds the interface with the JAX-RS annotations)
>
> b.      the implementation of those services would be a simple proxy that
> forwards the request to the back-end through an asynchronous CXF client,
> once the typical validation/etc. are performed
>
> c.       interceptors would make it possible to add features such as the
> ability to do throttling/etc. based on tokens, for example
>
>
>
> The main advantage over servlets being the event-based I/O rather than
> distributing requests over a pool of threads.
>
>
>
> Now, I'm fairly new to the CXF codebase, but I've used CXF quite a bit in
> the past (but also Camel, so the whole Message/Exchange part is not entirely
> foreign to me). Which leads to me think maybe I could try to get this
> working and submit a pull-request when it gets to a point where it's
> useable.
>
>
>
> However, just to make sure my pull-request doesn't get instantly refused, I
> have some question regarding what I plan to do (mostly: is it OK if I do it
> this way?). Here's the plan:
>
>
>
> -          turn the cxf-rt-transports-http project and its classes into
> something more abstract, extracting the servlet-specific parts to a new
> cxf-rt-transports-http-servlet project; this is mostly the various
> parts/methods that use ServletConfig, ServletContext, HttpServletRequest,
> etc.
>
> -          this cxf-rt-transports-http-servlet project would depend on
> cxf-rt-transports-http and implement servlet-specific versions of the
> generic abstract classes and methods present in cxf-rt-transports-http
>
> -          create a cxf-rt-transport-http-vertx project that does just the
> same, but using Vert.x classes and mechanisms rather than the servlet
> equivalent, eg: HttpServletRequest becomes HttpServerRequest
>
> -          update the cxf-rt-transports-http-* projects so that they depend
> on cxf-rt-transports-http-servlet rather than cxf-rt-transports-http
>
>
>
> This would cover a first step that only includes a slice of the server-side
> elements and nothing regarding the CXF client.
>
>
>
> Can anyone confirm that this would be the right way to add Vert.x support to
> CXF?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>


-- 
Sergey Beryozkin

Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/

Mime
View raw message