cxf-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aki Yoshida <elak...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Websockets and SSE
Date Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:06:19 GMT
Hi Sergey, Dan,
Thanks for your feedback.
I will try out a few things and try to get more clear feeling
concretely for the CXF case and how things will look.
regards, aki

2013/12/11 Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>:
>
> Honestly, I’d likely just stick it in Jetty and -hc as the implementation would be
bound to those two implementations.   If at some point in the future there is enough interest
in adding additional implementations, we could pull it out into a common module or something.
>
> That’s just my opinion though.   :-)
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Aki Yoshida <elakito@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I worked on the camel transport using atmosphere for the server-side
>> and async-http-client for the client-side.
>> I got stuck at the point in naming the components or putting this
>> behavior into one of the existing components.
>> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Re-update-of-websocket-td5742842.html
>>
>> For cxf, it makes sense to offer the websocket transport and somer
>> people asked me already.
>> I think, implementation-wise, it is straightforward.
>> But we just have the same question of whether to have a separate
>> transport or having it as a separate transport (e.g., ws) or an option
>> in one of the existing ones (e.g, in http-hc for the client part and
>> http or http-jetty or a new http-atmosphere for the server-side).
>>
>> I think both arguments have some points.
>> Making a separate transport makes the code simpler to implement
>> websocket functionality and also keeps its configuration simple.
>> But the component is bound to one specific implementation and if
>> someone wants a specific underlining implementation that is different
>> from the one used, s/he will need an implementation specific component
>> instead. But an implementation specific component that already
>> provides its own transfer mode, adding a websocket mode makes it more
>> complicated and so as its configuration.
>>
>> So, I would like to hear more opinions here.
>>
>> thanks.
>> regards, aki
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/11 Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On 11/12/13 12:08, António Mota wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all.
>>>>
>>>> Does CXF 3.0-M supports Websockets and Server-sent Events? I read the
>>>> migration but couldn't find any info.
>>>>
>>> We only have this JIRA so far
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-5339
>>>
>>> Aki is doing some work directly in Camel - please check it too;
>>>
>>> Though IMHO having it supported in CXF at some minimum level should also be
>>> done eventually
>>> Sergey
>>>
>>>> Cheers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Melhores cumprimentos / Beir beannacht / Best regards *
>>>> *______________________________________________________*
>>>>
>>>> *António Manuel dos Santos Mota <http://gplus.to/amsmota>*
>>>> *http://www.linkedin.com/in/amsmota* <http://www.linkedin.com/in/amsmota>
>>>> *______________________________________________________*
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sergey Beryozkin
>>>
>>> Talend Community Coders
>>> http://coders.talend.com/
>>>
>>> Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>

Mime
View raw message