Re: [DISCUSS]websocket transport with undertow?

[Freeman Fang <fr...@gmail.com>]

Hi Sergey,

Thanks for your detailed answer, I will experiment all your suggestions.

Best Regards
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Freeman(Yue) Fang

Red Hat, Inc. 
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat



> On Feb 28, 2017, at 10:07 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hey Freeman
> 
> You can with a JAXRSClientServerWebSocketTest (copy it to the undertow systests), add a CXF websocket transport dep and see if it can already work. Next try JAXRSClientServerWebSocketSpringWebAppTest in the undertow tests...
> 
> Cheers, Sergey
> On 28/02/17 13:44, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> Hi Freeman,
>> 
>> yeah, please try your new module idea on the branch and see if you can
>> make a JAXRS sys test working with it, but also
>> try to run a websocket web demo with Tomcat 7 first to confirm it is
>> working, then with Tomcat 8 and somehow get it actually running :-), and
>> I think if you make it happen then it will also work with Undertow
>> 
>> Thanks, Sergey
>> On 28/02/17 13:39, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>> 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...
>>> 
>>> Sergey
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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 <sb...@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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sergey Beryozkin
> 
> Talend Community Coders
> http://coders.talend.com/