Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cxf-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 86FC2102E6 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 25572 invoked by uid 500); 12 Dec 2013 13:06:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-users-archive@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 25459 invoked by uid 500); 12 Dec 2013 13:06:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@cxf.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 25445 invoked by uid 99); 12 Dec 2013 13:06:43 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:06:43 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of elakito@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.46 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.46] (HELO mail-pb0-f46.google.com) (209.85.160.46) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:06:40 +0000 Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id md12so475010pbc.33 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:06:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dHRgTQTtHVPV8EhwDZA0LuxB/0VDUJ+HGy+H1aGoBAY=; b=T48sCEGXM7CmrnzEWWT/K8VDeQj+lLmuwLoAdjCCL/0Lz6yqT2RV1kwvmocoEUwkfX LeFZpUt2qvBUzcWHvdLD35OBoITI+GKMdm21KrlP+pyWKXzBWSxw/DWJ65K+ZP6kPDI2 62My1UpEPY3kygNBChvGLeYnDVtPup5Zjo7uyIszV0pX8xW3OqPsY+KyWoPRoCCE60+X RP/e0RHL8poQnT/Lh1rvRlyEMxza0fuvZbxJn9ZQkgRtM4jGgEko02Q8lCdd86Cxuvhh cpSD2RpDEPAAW2+4VcR7Rtl4KiZG+27XCJVsZqYbpzhl33DqBLxqUbzSVcQ6LF6kKd41 1bSA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.197.234 with SMTP id ix10mr11950476pbc.80.1386853579932; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:06:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.212.167 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:06:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <52A857E1.1020608@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:06:19 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Websockets and SSE From: Aki Yoshida To: users@cxf.apache.org Cc: Daniel Kulp , Sergey Beryozkin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 : > > Honestly, I=92d likely just stick it in Jetty and -hc as the implementati= on would be bound to those two implementations. If at some point in the f= uture there is enough interest in adding additional implementations, we cou= ld pull it out into a common module or something. > > That=92s just my opinion though. :-) > > Dan > > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Aki Yoshida 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-td57428= 42.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 : >>> Hi >>> >>> On 11/12/13 12:08, Ant=F3nio 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 als= o be >>> done eventually >>> Sergey >>> >>>> Cheers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * Melhores cumprimentos / Beir beannacht / Best regards * >>>> *______________________________________________________* >>>> >>>> *Ant=F3nio Manuel dos Santos Mota * >>>> *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 >