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 Thu, 19 May 2016 15:53:15 GMT
Hi Michael

Not that we on Java 8 trunk, should we continue the conversation ?

Cheers, Sergey

On 09/10/15 22:20, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Sounds good :-), thanks again - as I said we can either try and align
> JAX-RS 2.1 features with Vert.x features or even have a dedicated Vert.x
> transport if that can help (to all of CXF users), hope something
> interesting will be done around it in CXF.
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
>
> On 09/10/15 22:00, Michael Putters wrote:
>> I guess I will wait a bit longer then ;-)
>>
>> One last bit of info, I suppose the easiest way to describe my goal would
>> be: https://github.com/englishtown/vertx-jersey but for CXF
>>
>> So, see you all in few weeks.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyozkin@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:57 PM
>> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Vert.x support
>>
>> 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/
>>
>
>


-- 
Sergey Beryozkin

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

Mime
View raw message