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 20:56:48 GMT
On 09/10/15 21:50, Michael Putters wrote:
> Well, by saying it's what would be used in this implementation, I mean this
> is what I would use to get CXF working with Vert.x's asynchronous model.
>  From what I understand this is what CXF uses at this point to handle
> asynchronicity, but maybe I'm wrong.
Yes, CXF is not even Java 8 based yet.

As I said a NIO 2.1 proposal will be coming shortly - next a trunk would 
have to be made minimally Java 8 based, finally we will need to decide 
how to do it. I'm not sure at this stage if Vert.x will need to be used 
but it is a bit early to make any conclusions.
Perhaps having a Vert.x specific transport makes sense, irrespectively 
of what JAX-RS 2.1 will provide, but it is still early to make this 
decision, 2.1 analysis needs to be made first

Sergey

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Canning, Charles [mailto:ccanning@stubhub.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:48 PM
> To: Michael Putters <michael.putters@binarygenetics.com>; dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Vert.x support
>
> Replace continuations with Observables in reactive, or actors in akka, or
> CompletableFutures in Java 8 or ... Your options arent as limited.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: Michael Putters
> Sent: 10/9/15, 1:40 PM
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Vert.x support
> Yes, the Continuations API is what would be used in this Vert.x
> implementation, but without the underlying mechanism provided by Vert.x I'd
> still be limited by the thread model used by servlet containers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyozkin@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:25 PM
> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Vert.x support
>
> 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/
>
>


-- 
Sergey Beryozkin

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

Mime
View raw message