cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Freeman Fang <freeman.f...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS]websocket transport with undertow?
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:12:19 GMT
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. 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.

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 <sberyozkin@gmail.com> 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:
> http://cxf.apache.org/docs/websocket.html
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


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