cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Beryozkin <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS]websocket transport with undertow?
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:39:52 GMT
Hi Freeman
On 28/02/17 13:12, Freeman Fang wrote:
> Hi Sergey,
> Thanks for the detailed response.
> I wanna add websocket transport with undertow because just like jetty, we have http-jetty
transport and we have websocket transport with jetty websocket implementation.

We don't have a web socket transport with a Jetty web socket 
implementation. We have a web socket transport which can use Atmosphere 
and it is is not available - then *delegates* to a Jetty implementation 
if it is available. Please have a look at the code.

And the most important thing is, this CXF web socket transport makes 
sure that irrespectively of which WebSocket implementation is loaded it 
does the proper formatting of the response and processing of the request 
as per the CXF docs/tests/demos which is what you'd need to duplicate 
somehow otherwise.

> As we also have http-undertow transport and so have websocket transport with undertow
websocket implementation should make sense IMHO.
> And yeah, the websocket transport with undertow websocket implementation should be just
as its counterpart, the websocket transport with jetty websocket implementation do.
> And yes, undertow implement JSR356, but I’m more looking at the embedded undertow server
which can support the websocket, not sure how the JSR356 code can kick in here though.
If Undertow implements JSR356 then the CXF WebSocket Transport can or 
should be able to load it which is what I was referring to.
For example, a CXF WebSocket demo works with Tomcat 7 but we do not have 
any Tomcat code in CXF not we use Jetty in that case, see what I mean ?
If it gets fixed to work in Tomcat 8 then it will also work with 
Undertow JSR356 which I expect to be effectively a wrapper around 
Undertow internal WebSocket code. IMHO it is really worth pursuing.

Otherwise you'd have something like undertow_websocket which would 
duplicate a fair bit of the existing CXF web socket transport code.

Think about it please, if we can avoid adding one more module by 
enhancing the existing one and achieving the same result for CXF 
endpoints using WebSocket on top of Undertow then it will be good IMHO...

You can try and go a new module route and add say a JAXRS Undertow 
WebSocket test by copying one of the existing JAXRS web socket tests
on a new branch and we can discuss it further - I hope once you end up 
doing it you will see why enhancing the existing Web Socket transport 
may be better :-).

If we can have the existing transport enhanced to load JSR356s correctly 
then we can get rid of the Jetty delegation code, have only Atmosphere 
linking to Tomcat/Jetty/Netty/Undertow JSR356s...


> Best Regards
> -------------
> Freeman(Yue) Fang
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
>> On Feb 28, 2017, at 6:38 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <> wrote:
>> Hi Freeman
>> On 27/02/17 23:44, Freeman Fang wrote:
>>> Hi Team,
>>> We have websocket transport in CXF for a while, I wanna know how wide is this
used by CXF users, if this is widely used, is it feasible to also add undertow websocket implementation
in CXF?
>> The existing CXF web socket transport is meant to support JAX-RS flows over WebSocket
given that the JSR356 API is not synchronized to either JAX-RS or JAX-WS at all. Please check
systests/jaxrs WebSockets tests.
>> I do not remember Aki trying it with JAXWS but with a bit of the extra work it will
work with JAXWS too.
>> Aki started documenting it here:
>> and I recall we were discussing enhancing the transport for it to load the custom
bindings to support SOAP etc
>> This transport uses Atmosphere if it is available and was tested with Tomcat 7 and
Jetty, Tomcat 8 was problematic due to the issues with the way JSR356 implementation was picked
up. Otherwise, if Jetty is available, it tries to use the Jetty implementation... This transport
will work side by side with either the HTTP Servlet or Http Jetty transports.
>> Users are asking and trying it now and then not sure how widely it is used but it
has to be supported IMHO and enhanced (custom bindings. etc).
>> As far as the Undertow WebSocket implementation is concerned, why would you like
to get it into CXF ?
>> If it can support the JAXRS flows and possibly JAXWS flows the way the current transport
can then why not, but IMHO this should be a prerequisite, given that CXF transports are here
to support JAXWS & JAXRS.
>> The other question is, does Undertow implement JSR356 ? If yes then
>> may be a better idea would be to fix the existing CXF websocket transport to correctly
load JSR356 code, which would make it work with the Undertow or Tomcat8 etc JSR356 code.
>> Thanks, Sergey
>>> Any input is appreciated.
>>> Thanks!
>>> -------------
>>> Freeman(Yue) Fang
>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat

View raw message