You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cxf.apache.org by Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu> on 2009/06/05 20:13:15 UTC
Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
I'm finally coming back to looking at this issue. I've added a Jira and
a patch at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2252
Let me know if there's anything I can do to clean up the patch. Since
the current Aegis databinding remains the default, I'm hoping that this
patch can be merged without causing any problems.
Thanks,
Josh
Josh Holtzman wrote:
> Right. In the SOA world, the WSDL is the service contract. In the
> Java world, the interface is the service contract. I therefore see no
> problem using JAX-WS annotations on the Java interfaces, since they
> describe how to translate between Java and WSDL.
>
> Thanks,
> Josh
>
> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>> Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to Sergey.
>>
>> So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS
>> annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Eoghan
>>
>> 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>
>>> Hi Eoghan,
>>> Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the service
>>> interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't break
>>> the OSGI
>>> service model. Perhaps I should explain my use case.
>>>
>>> We are building an open source system that must be able to operate
>>> in both a
>>> co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology. For the co-located
>>> flavor,
>>> we don't want to incur the overhead of web service serialization...
>>> we want
>>> direct access to the java services as they were published to the OSGI
>>> service registry. For the distributed topology, we want to allow
>>> adopting
>>> institutions to swap out individual services for their own
>>> implementations
>>> in other languages. And finally, we want our service clients to be
>>> ignorant
>>> of the current topology. Service developers should enable their
>>> services to
>>> be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote property
>>> and using
>>> JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the services
>>> to be
>>> remote.
>>>
>>> Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks
>>> wanting to
>>> stick with aegis/simple. But it does allow projects that want all
>>> of the
>>> benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable outside
>>> of the
>>> CXF world.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Josh
>>>
>>>
>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with dOSGi.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was
>>>> annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc?
>>>>
>>>> And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense? i.e.
>>>> if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely unchanged
>>>> OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS server-side
>>>> application from the get-go?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to think
>>>> through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's more
>>>> intrusive than Aegis/simple.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Eoghan
>>>>
>>>> 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing questions
>>>>> about
>>>>> his
>>>>> RFC 119 webinar. One of his answers sparked another question, and
>>>>> rather
>>>>> than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF
>>>>> community a
>>>>> crack
>>>>> at it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding strategy
>>>>> to use
>>>>> with DOSGI. Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired". I
>>>>> recognize
>>>>> that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves the
>>>>> developer
>>>>> from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities. But it doesn't make sense for
>>>>> cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions right
>>>>> after
>>>>> the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?").
>>>>>
>>>>> The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not easily
>>>>> usable
>>>>> cross-platform. I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a
>>>>> wsdl that
>>>>> specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be
>>>>> configurable
>>>>> in
>>>>> the DOSGI reference implementation? If so, I'd be happy to work on a
>>>>> patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Josh
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Josh Holtzman
>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>> 510.529.9225
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
--
Josh Holtzman
Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
jholtzman@berkeley.edu
510.529.9225
RE: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@progress.com>.
I agree it makes sense.
I was also thinking about strings, but I was more concerned about the
case when say multiple frontends are used in a given OSGI container
instance, so
Say for a given service Aegis is ok (irrespectively of which frontend is
used) but may be for another service it has to be JAXB (or xmlbeans or
sdo).
So I'm ok with
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend
but just suggesting that an ability to override a databinding on a
per-frontend basis is also taken into account, ex :
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.xmlbeans
one would use this property only if the global property like
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb has to be overridden
may be we can consider adding such a possibility to override once the
real need for it arises...
cheers, Sergey
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dkulp@apache.org]
Sent: 05 June 2009 21:58
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Cc: Sergey Beryozkin
Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
Would it make more sense to just have two keys:
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend
that instead of being booleans, would be strings that defined what to
use.
"jaxb"/"aegis" (maybe sdo or xmlbeans in the future?) or
"simple"/"jaxws"/"jaxrs".
Certainly more extensible going forward.
Dan
On Fri June 5 2009 4:46:13 pm Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning to integrate JAX-RS runtime into a DOSGi as well.
>
> One can consider that
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple
>
> is a default property.
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws
>
> would cause a jaxws frontend be used.
>
> Perhaps
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs
>
> can indicate that JAX-RS should be used.
>
> Now both jaxws and jaxrs can use JAXB, and as Dan said even simple
> frontend can use JAXB. And all of them can use Aegis
>
> So as far as databinding is concerned, should it be rather
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.jaxb
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.xmlbeans
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.jaxb
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis (default)
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.jaxb
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.aegis
>
> etc
>
> so that a databinding can be applied selectively, on a per-frontend
> basis ?
>
> May be properties like org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb can serve
> as a global property which has to apply to all frontends, that is if
is
> is set then even a simple frontend should use JAXB, but a property
like
>
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis
>
> can be used to override it
>
> cheers, Sergey
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Holtzman [mailto:jholtzman@berkeley.edu]
> Sent: 05 June 2009 21:30
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
>
> I'm the confused one :) I was conflating the two. Daniel Kulp
pointed
> this out in the Jira ticket, and I've changed the patch so it now
> watches for two properties: org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb and
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws. If the first is true, the jaxb
> databinding is used instead of aegis. If the second property is true,
> the jaxws frontend is used rather than the simple frontend.
>
> Josh
>
> Benson Margulies wrote:
> > I'm confused. Generally, it's Aegis versus JAX-B and Simple versus
> > JAX-WS. Are you really replacing Simple with JAX-WS, or are you
> > replacing both?
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Holtzman
<jh...@berkeley.edu>
>
> wrote:
> >> I'm finally coming back to looking at this issue. I've added a
Jira
>
> and a
>
> >> patch at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2252
> >>
> >> Let me know if there's anything I can do to clean up the patch.
>
> Since the
>
> >> current Aegis databinding remains the default, I'm hoping that this
>
> patch
>
> >> can be merged without causing any problems.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Josh
> >>
> >> Josh Holtzman wrote:
> >>> Right. In the SOA world, the WSDL is the service contract. In
the
>
> Java
>
> >>> world, the interface is the service contract. I therefore see no
>
> problem
>
> >>> using JAX-WS annotations on the Java interfaces, since they
describe
>
> how to
>
> >>> translate between Java and WSDL.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Josh
> >>>
> >>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> >>>> Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to
>
> Sergey.
>
> >>>> So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS
> >>>> annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Eoghan
> >>>>
> >>>> 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
> >>>>> Hi Eoghan,
> >>>>> Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the
>
> service
>
> >>>>> interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't
break
>
> the
>
> >>>>> OSGI
> >>>>> service model. Perhaps I should explain my use case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We are building an open source system that must be able to
operate
>
> in
>
> >>>>> both a
> >>>>> co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology. For the
co-located
> >>>>> flavor,
> >>>>> we don't want to incur the overhead of web service
>
> serialization... we
>
> >>>>> want
> >>>>> direct access to the java services as they were published to the
>
> OSGI
>
> >>>>> service registry. For the distributed topology, we want to
allow
> >>>>> adopting
> >>>>> institutions to swap out individual services for their own
> >>>>> implementations
> >>>>> in other languages. And finally, we want our service clients to
>
> be
>
> >>>>> ignorant
> >>>>> of the current topology. Service developers should enable their
> >>>>> services to
> >>>>> be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote
property
>
> and
>
> >>>>> using
> >>>>> JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the
>
> services to
>
> >>>>> be
> >>>>> remote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks
>
> wanting
>
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> stick with aegis/simple. But it does allow projects that want
all
>
> of
>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable
>
> outside of
>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> CXF world.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Josh
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Josh,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with
>
> dOSGi.
>
> >>>>>> Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was
> >>>>>> annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense?
>
> i.e.
>
> >>>>>> if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely
>
> unchanged
>
> >>>>>> OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS
>
> server-side
>
> >>>>>> application from the get-go?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to
>
> think
>
> >>>>>> through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's
>
> more
>
> >>>>>> intrusive than Aegis/simple.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Eoghan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
> >>>>>>> I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing
>
> questions
>
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>> RFC 119 webinar. One of his answers sparked another question,
>
> and
>
> >>>>>>> rather
> >>>>>>> than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF
>
> community a
>
> >>>>>>> crack
> >>>>>>> at it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding
>
> strategy to
>
> >>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>> with DOSGI. Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired".
>
> I
>
> >>>>>>> recognize
> >>>>>>> that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves
the
> >>>>>>> developer
> >>>>>>> from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities. But it doesn't make
>
> sense for
>
> >>>>>>> cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions
>
> right
>
> >>>>>>> after
> >>>>>>> the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?").
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not
>
> easily
>
> >>>>>>> usable
> >>>>>>> cross-platform. I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a
>
> wsdl
>
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be
> >>>>>>> configurable
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> the DOSGI reference implementation? If so, I'd be happy to
work
>
> on a
>
> >>>>>>> patch.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1]
>
>
http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar
> .html
>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Josh
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
> >>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
> >>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
> >>>>>>> 510.529.9225
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Josh Holtzman
> >>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
> >>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
> >>>>> 510.529.9225
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Holtzman
> >> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
> >> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
> >> 510.529.9225
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Would it make more sense to just have two keys:
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend
that instead of being booleans, would be strings that defined what to use.
"jaxb"/"aegis" (maybe sdo or xmlbeans in the future?) or
"simple"/"jaxws"/"jaxrs".
Certainly more extensible going forward.
Dan
On Fri June 5 2009 4:46:13 pm Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning to integrate JAX-RS runtime into a DOSGi as well.
>
> One can consider that
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple
>
> is a default property.
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws
>
> would cause a jaxws frontend be used.
>
> Perhaps
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs
>
> can indicate that JAX-RS should be used.
>
> Now both jaxws and jaxrs can use JAXB, and as Dan said even simple
> frontend can use JAXB. And all of them can use Aegis
>
> So as far as databinding is concerned, should it be rather
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.jaxb
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.xmlbeans
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.jaxb
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis (default)
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.jaxb
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.aegis
>
> etc
>
> so that a databinding can be applied selectively, on a per-frontend
> basis ?
>
> May be properties like org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb can serve
> as a global property which has to apply to all frontends, that is if is
> is set then even a simple frontend should use JAXB, but a property like
>
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis
>
> can be used to override it
>
> cheers, Sergey
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Holtzman [mailto:jholtzman@berkeley.edu]
> Sent: 05 June 2009 21:30
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
>
> I'm the confused one :) I was conflating the two. Daniel Kulp pointed
> this out in the Jira ticket, and I've changed the patch so it now
> watches for two properties: org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb and
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws. If the first is true, the jaxb
> databinding is used instead of aegis. If the second property is true,
> the jaxws frontend is used rather than the simple frontend.
>
> Josh
>
> Benson Margulies wrote:
> > I'm confused. Generally, it's Aegis versus JAX-B and Simple versus
> > JAX-WS. Are you really replacing Simple with JAX-WS, or are you
> > replacing both?
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>
>
> wrote:
> >> I'm finally coming back to looking at this issue. I've added a Jira
>
> and a
>
> >> patch at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2252
> >>
> >> Let me know if there's anything I can do to clean up the patch.
>
> Since the
>
> >> current Aegis databinding remains the default, I'm hoping that this
>
> patch
>
> >> can be merged without causing any problems.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Josh
> >>
> >> Josh Holtzman wrote:
> >>> Right. In the SOA world, the WSDL is the service contract. In the
>
> Java
>
> >>> world, the interface is the service contract. I therefore see no
>
> problem
>
> >>> using JAX-WS annotations on the Java interfaces, since they describe
>
> how to
>
> >>> translate between Java and WSDL.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Josh
> >>>
> >>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> >>>> Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to
>
> Sergey.
>
> >>>> So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS
> >>>> annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Eoghan
> >>>>
> >>>> 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
> >>>>> Hi Eoghan,
> >>>>> Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the
>
> service
>
> >>>>> interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't break
>
> the
>
> >>>>> OSGI
> >>>>> service model. Perhaps I should explain my use case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We are building an open source system that must be able to operate
>
> in
>
> >>>>> both a
> >>>>> co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology. For the co-located
> >>>>> flavor,
> >>>>> we don't want to incur the overhead of web service
>
> serialization... we
>
> >>>>> want
> >>>>> direct access to the java services as they were published to the
>
> OSGI
>
> >>>>> service registry. For the distributed topology, we want to allow
> >>>>> adopting
> >>>>> institutions to swap out individual services for their own
> >>>>> implementations
> >>>>> in other languages. And finally, we want our service clients to
>
> be
>
> >>>>> ignorant
> >>>>> of the current topology. Service developers should enable their
> >>>>> services to
> >>>>> be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote property
>
> and
>
> >>>>> using
> >>>>> JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the
>
> services to
>
> >>>>> be
> >>>>> remote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks
>
> wanting
>
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> stick with aegis/simple. But it does allow projects that want all
>
> of
>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable
>
> outside of
>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> CXF world.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Josh
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Josh,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with
>
> dOSGi.
>
> >>>>>> Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was
> >>>>>> annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense?
>
> i.e.
>
> >>>>>> if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely
>
> unchanged
>
> >>>>>> OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS
>
> server-side
>
> >>>>>> application from the get-go?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to
>
> think
>
> >>>>>> through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's
>
> more
>
> >>>>>> intrusive than Aegis/simple.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Eoghan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
> >>>>>>> I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing
>
> questions
>
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>> RFC 119 webinar. One of his answers sparked another question,
>
> and
>
> >>>>>>> rather
> >>>>>>> than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF
>
> community a
>
> >>>>>>> crack
> >>>>>>> at it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding
>
> strategy to
>
> >>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>> with DOSGI. Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired".
>
> I
>
> >>>>>>> recognize
> >>>>>>> that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves the
> >>>>>>> developer
> >>>>>>> from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities. But it doesn't make
>
> sense for
>
> >>>>>>> cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions
>
> right
>
> >>>>>>> after
> >>>>>>> the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?").
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not
>
> easily
>
> >>>>>>> usable
> >>>>>>> cross-platform. I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a
>
> wsdl
>
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be
> >>>>>>> configurable
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> the DOSGI reference implementation? If so, I'd be happy to work
>
> on a
>
> >>>>>>> patch.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1]
>
> http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar
> .html
>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Josh
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
> >>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
> >>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
> >>>>>>> 510.529.9225
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Josh Holtzman
> >>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
> >>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
> >>>>> 510.529.9225
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Holtzman
> >> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
> >> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
> >> 510.529.9225
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 - This seems to make a lot of sense to me!
Cheers,
David
2009/6/5 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
> I think this can all be handled with just two properties:
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding=[ jaxb | xmlbeans | aegis (default) ]
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend=[ jaxws | jaxrs | simple (default) ]
>
> This way, you can just mix and match. Does that meet your needs?
>
> I haven't seen a ClientProxyFactoryBean equivalent that uses JAX-RS in the
> way that JaxWsProxyFactoryBean creates client proxies for JAX-WS. Is that
> what you're working on?
>
> Josh
>
> Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm planning to integrate JAX-RS runtime into a DOSGi as well.
>>
>> One can consider that
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple
>>
>> is a default property.
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws
>>
>> would cause a jaxws frontend be used.
>>
>> Perhaps
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs
>>
>> can indicate that JAX-RS should be used.
>>
>> Now both jaxws and jaxrs can use JAXB, and as Dan said even simple
>> frontend can use JAXB. And all of them can use Aegis
>>
>> So as far as databinding is concerned, should it be rather
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.jaxb
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.xmlbeans
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.jaxb
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis (default)
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.jaxb
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.aegis
>>
>> etc
>>
>> so that a databinding can be applied selectively, on a per-frontend
>> basis ?
>>
>> May be properties like org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb can serve
>> as a global property which has to apply to all frontends, that is if is
>> is set then even a simple frontend should use JAXB, but a property like
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis
>>
>> can be used to override it
>>
>> cheers, Sergey
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Josh Holtzman [mailto:jholtzman@berkeley.edu] Sent: 05 June 2009
>> 21:30
>> To: users@cxf.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
>>
>> I'm the confused one :) I was conflating the two. Daniel Kulp pointed
>> this out in the Jira ticket, and I've changed the patch so it now watches
>> for two properties: org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb and
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws. If the first is true, the jaxb
>> databinding is used instead of aegis. If the second property is true, the
>> jaxws frontend is used rather than the simple frontend.
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm confused. Generally, it's Aegis versus JAX-B and Simple versus
>>> JAX-WS. Are you really replacing Simple with JAX-WS, or are you
>>> replacing both?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>
>>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm finally coming back to looking at this issue. I've added a Jira
>>>>
>>
>> and a
>>
>>>>
>>>> patch at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2252
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if there's anything I can do to clean up the patch.
>>>>
>>
>> Since the
>>
>>>>
>>>> current Aegis databinding remains the default, I'm hoping that this
>>>>
>>
>> patch
>>
>>>>
>>>> can be merged without causing any problems.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Josh
>>>>
>>>> Josh Holtzman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. In the SOA world, the WSDL is the service contract. In the
>>>>>
>>
>> Java
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> world, the interface is the service contract. I therefore see no
>>>>>
>>
>> problem
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> using JAX-WS annotations on the Java interfaces, since they describe
>>>>>
>>
>> how to
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> translate between Java and WSDL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Josh
>>>>>
>>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to
>>>>>>
>>
>> Sergey.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS
>>>>>> annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Eoghan,
>>>>>>> Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the
>>>>>>>
>>
>> service
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't break
>>>>>>>
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OSGI
>>>>>>> service model. Perhaps I should explain my use case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are building an open source system that must be able to operate
>>>>>>>
>>
>> in
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> both a
>>>>>>> co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology. For the co-located
>>>>>>> flavor,
>>>>>>> we don't want to incur the overhead of web service
>>>>>>>
>>
>> serialization... we
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>> direct access to the java services as they were published to the
>>>>>>>
>>
>> OSGI
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> service registry. For the distributed topology, we want to allow
>>>>>>> adopting
>>>>>>> institutions to swap out individual services for their own
>>>>>>> implementations
>>>>>>> in other languages. And finally, we want our service clients to
>>>>>>>
>>
>> be
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ignorant
>>>>>>> of the current topology. Service developers should enable their
>>>>>>> services to
>>>>>>> be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote property
>>>>>>>
>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>> JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the
>>>>>>>
>>
>> services to
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> remote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks
>>>>>>>
>>
>> wanting
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> stick with aegis/simple. But it does allow projects that want all
>>>>>>>
>>
>> of
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable
>>>>>>>
>>
>> outside of
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> CXF world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with
>>>>>>>>
>>
>> dOSGi.
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was
>>>>>>>> annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense?
>>>>>>>>
>>
>> i.e.
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely
>>>>>>>>
>>
>> unchanged
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS
>>>>>>>>
>>
>> server-side
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> application from the get-go?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to
>>>>>>>>
>>
>> think
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's
>>>>>>>>
>>
>> more
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> intrusive than Aegis/simple.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> questions
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> RFC 119 webinar. One of his answers sparked another question,
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>> than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> community a
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> crack
>>>>>>>>> at it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> strategy to
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> with DOSGI. Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired".
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> I
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>> that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves the
>>>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>>>> from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities. But it doesn't make
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> sense for
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> right
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>> the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> easily
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> usable
>>>>>>>>> cross-platform. I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> wsdl
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be
>>>>>>>>> configurable
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the DOSGI reference implementation? If so, I'd be happy to work
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> on a
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> patch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar
>> .html
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Josh Holtzman
> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
> 510.529.9225
>
>
RE: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@progress.com>.
Oh I see, so these properties are on per-service basis. Then my proposal
can be ignored.
Thanks, Sergey
> I haven't seen a ClientProxyFactoryBean equivalent that uses JAX-RS in
> the way that JaxWsProxyFactoryBean creates client proxies for JAX-WS.
> Is that what you're working on?
It's all done, as far as proxy generation is concerned, it works pretty
much the same way as with simple frontend/jaxws. Some information is
here :
http://cwiki.apache.org/CXF20DOC/jax-rs.html#JAX-RS-ClientAPI
I will start a separate thread.
Thanks, Sergey
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Holtzman [mailto:jholtzman@berkeley.edu]
Sent: 05 June 2009 22:23
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
Yes, sorry about that. I missed Dan's reply as I was typing my own.
The patch that I'm working on inspects each service reference for these
properties, so each service can choose its own databinding and frontend.
Josh
Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi
>
> Please see my last reply to Dan.
>
> If multiple frontends are involved in a given OSGI container instance
> then it might be not possible. As I said, I'm supporting the proposed
> two properties but suggesting a possibility for a databinding one be
> overridden on a per-frontend basis. That said I'm ok with not
> considering this option until it's actually required - I reckon it
will
> be relatively simple to fix when needed.
>
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Holtzman [mailto:jholtzman@berkeley.edu]
> Sent: 05 June 2009 22:04
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
>
> I think this can all be handled with just two properties:
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding=[ jaxb | xmlbeans | aegis (default) ]
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend=[ jaxws | jaxrs | simple (default) ]
>
> This way, you can just mix and match. Does that meet your needs?
>
> I haven't seen a ClientProxyFactoryBean equivalent that uses JAX-RS in
> the way that JaxWsProxyFactoryBean creates client proxies for JAX-WS.
> Is that what you're working on?
>
> Josh
>
> Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm planning to integrate JAX-RS runtime into a DOSGi as well.
>>
>> One can consider that
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple
>>
>> is a default property.
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws
>>
>> would cause a jaxws frontend be used.
>>
>> Perhaps
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs
>>
>> can indicate that JAX-RS should be used.
>>
>> Now both jaxws and jaxrs can use JAXB, and as Dan said even simple
>> frontend can use JAXB. And all of them can use Aegis
>>
>> So as far as databinding is concerned, should it be rather
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.jaxb
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.xmlbeans
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.jaxb
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis (default)
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.jaxb
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.aegis
>>
>> etc
>>
>> so that a databinding can be applied selectively, on a per-frontend
>> basis ?
>>
>> May be properties like org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb can
serve
>> as a global property which has to apply to all frontends, that is if
>>
> is
>
>> is set then even a simple frontend should use JAXB, but a property
>>
> like
>
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis
>>
>> can be used to override it
>>
>> cheers, Sergey
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Josh Holtzman [mailto:jholtzman@berkeley.edu]
>> Sent: 05 June 2009 21:30
>> To: users@cxf.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
>>
>> I'm the confused one :) I was conflating the two. Daniel Kulp
>>
> pointed
>
>> this out in the Jira ticket, and I've changed the patch so it now
>> watches for two properties: org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb and
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws. If the first is true, the jaxb
>> databinding is used instead of aegis. If the second property is
true,
>>
>
>
>> the jaxws frontend is used rather than the simple frontend.
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm confused. Generally, it's Aegis versus JAX-B and Simple versus
>>> JAX-WS. Are you really replacing Simple with JAX-WS, or are you
>>> replacing both?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Holtzman
>>>
> <jh...@berkeley.edu>
>
>>>
>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm finally coming back to looking at this issue. I've added a
Jira
>>>>
>>>>
>> and a
>>
>>
>>>> patch at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2252
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if there's anything I can do to clean up the patch.
>>>>
>>>>
>> Since the
>>
>>
>>>> current Aegis databinding remains the default, I'm hoping that this
>>>>
>>>>
>> patch
>>
>>
>>>> can be merged without causing any problems.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Josh
>>>>
>>>> Josh Holtzman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Right. In the SOA world, the WSDL is the service contract. In
the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> Java
>>
>>
>>>>> world, the interface is the service contract. I therefore see no
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> problem
>>
>>
>>>>> using JAX-WS annotations on the Java interfaces, since they
>>>>>
> describe
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> how to
>>
>>
>>>>> translate between Java and WSDL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Josh
>>>>>
>>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> Sergey.
>>
>>
>>>>>> So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS
>>>>>> annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Eoghan,
>>>>>>> Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> service
>>
>>
>>>>>>> interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't
>>>>>>>
> break
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>
>>>>>>> OSGI
>>>>>>> service model. Perhaps I should explain my use case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are building an open source system that must be able to
>>>>>>>
> operate
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> in
>>
>>
>>>>>>> both a
>>>>>>> co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology. For the
>>>>>>>
> co-located
>
>>>>>>> flavor,
>>>>>>> we don't want to incur the overhead of web service
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> serialization... we
>>
>>
>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>> direct access to the java services as they were published to the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> OSGI
>>
>>
>>>>>>> service registry. For the distributed topology, we want to
allow
>>>>>>> adopting
>>>>>>> institutions to swap out individual services for their own
>>>>>>> implementations
>>>>>>> in other languages. And finally, we want our service clients to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> be
>>
>>
>>>>>>> ignorant
>>>>>>> of the current topology. Service developers should enable their
>>>>>>> services to
>>>>>>> be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote
>>>>>>>
> property
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>
>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>> JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> services to
>>
>>
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> remote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> wanting
>>
>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> stick with aegis/simple. But it does allow projects that want
>>>>>>>
> all
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> of
>>
>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> outside of
>>
>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> CXF world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> dOSGi.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was
>>>>>>>> annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> i.e.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> unchanged
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> server-side
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> application from the get-go?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> think
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> more
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> intrusive than Aegis/simple.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> questions
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> RFC 119 webinar. One of his answers sparked another question,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>> than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> community a
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> crack
>>>>>>>>> at it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> strategy to
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> with DOSGI. Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> I
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>> that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves
the
>>>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>>>> from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities. But it doesn't make
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> sense for
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> right
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>> the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> easily
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> usable
>>>>>>>>> cross-platform. I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> wsdl
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be
>>>>>>>>> configurable
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the DOSGI reference implementation? If so, I'd be happy to
>>>>>>>>>
> work
>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> on a
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> patch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>
http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar
>
>> .html
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Josh Holtzman
Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
jholtzman@berkeley.edu
510.529.9225
Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
Posted by Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>.
Yes, sorry about that. I missed Dan's reply as I was typing my own.
The patch that I'm working on inspects each service reference for these
properties, so each service can choose its own databinding and frontend.
Josh
Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi
>
> Please see my last reply to Dan.
>
> If multiple frontends are involved in a given OSGI container instance
> then it might be not possible. As I said, I'm supporting the proposed
> two properties but suggesting a possibility for a databinding one be
> overridden on a per-frontend basis. That said I'm ok with not
> considering this option until it's actually required - I reckon it will
> be relatively simple to fix when needed.
>
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Holtzman [mailto:jholtzman@berkeley.edu]
> Sent: 05 June 2009 22:04
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
>
> I think this can all be handled with just two properties:
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding=[ jaxb | xmlbeans | aegis (default) ]
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend=[ jaxws | jaxrs | simple (default) ]
>
> This way, you can just mix and match. Does that meet your needs?
>
> I haven't seen a ClientProxyFactoryBean equivalent that uses JAX-RS in
> the way that JaxWsProxyFactoryBean creates client proxies for JAX-WS.
> Is that what you're working on?
>
> Josh
>
> Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm planning to integrate JAX-RS runtime into a DOSGi as well.
>>
>> One can consider that
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple
>>
>> is a default property.
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws
>>
>> would cause a jaxws frontend be used.
>>
>> Perhaps
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs
>>
>> can indicate that JAX-RS should be used.
>>
>> Now both jaxws and jaxrs can use JAXB, and as Dan said even simple
>> frontend can use JAXB. And all of them can use Aegis
>>
>> So as far as databinding is concerned, should it be rather
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.jaxb
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.xmlbeans
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.jaxb
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis (default)
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.jaxb
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.aegis
>>
>> etc
>>
>> so that a databinding can be applied selectively, on a per-frontend
>> basis ?
>>
>> May be properties like org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb can serve
>> as a global property which has to apply to all frontends, that is if
>>
> is
>
>> is set then even a simple frontend should use JAXB, but a property
>>
> like
>
>>
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis
>>
>> can be used to override it
>>
>> cheers, Sergey
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Josh Holtzman [mailto:jholtzman@berkeley.edu]
>> Sent: 05 June 2009 21:30
>> To: users@cxf.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
>>
>> I'm the confused one :) I was conflating the two. Daniel Kulp
>>
> pointed
>
>> this out in the Jira ticket, and I've changed the patch so it now
>> watches for two properties: org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb and
>> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws. If the first is true, the jaxb
>> databinding is used instead of aegis. If the second property is true,
>>
>
>
>> the jaxws frontend is used rather than the simple frontend.
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm confused. Generally, it's Aegis versus JAX-B and Simple versus
>>> JAX-WS. Are you really replacing Simple with JAX-WS, or are you
>>> replacing both?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Holtzman
>>>
> <jh...@berkeley.edu>
>
>>>
>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm finally coming back to looking at this issue. I've added a Jira
>>>>
>>>>
>> and a
>>
>>
>>>> patch at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2252
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if there's anything I can do to clean up the patch.
>>>>
>>>>
>> Since the
>>
>>
>>>> current Aegis databinding remains the default, I'm hoping that this
>>>>
>>>>
>> patch
>>
>>
>>>> can be merged without causing any problems.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Josh
>>>>
>>>> Josh Holtzman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Right. In the SOA world, the WSDL is the service contract. In the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> Java
>>
>>
>>>>> world, the interface is the service contract. I therefore see no
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> problem
>>
>>
>>>>> using JAX-WS annotations on the Java interfaces, since they
>>>>>
> describe
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> how to
>>
>>
>>>>> translate between Java and WSDL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Josh
>>>>>
>>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> Sergey.
>>
>>
>>>>>> So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS
>>>>>> annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Eoghan,
>>>>>>> Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> service
>>
>>
>>>>>>> interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't
>>>>>>>
> break
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>
>>>>>>> OSGI
>>>>>>> service model. Perhaps I should explain my use case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are building an open source system that must be able to
>>>>>>>
> operate
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> in
>>
>>
>>>>>>> both a
>>>>>>> co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology. For the
>>>>>>>
> co-located
>
>>>>>>> flavor,
>>>>>>> we don't want to incur the overhead of web service
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> serialization... we
>>
>>
>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>> direct access to the java services as they were published to the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> OSGI
>>
>>
>>>>>>> service registry. For the distributed topology, we want to allow
>>>>>>> adopting
>>>>>>> institutions to swap out individual services for their own
>>>>>>> implementations
>>>>>>> in other languages. And finally, we want our service clients to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> be
>>
>>
>>>>>>> ignorant
>>>>>>> of the current topology. Service developers should enable their
>>>>>>> services to
>>>>>>> be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote
>>>>>>>
> property
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>
>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>> JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> services to
>>
>>
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> remote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> wanting
>>
>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> stick with aegis/simple. But it does allow projects that want
>>>>>>>
> all
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> of
>>
>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> outside of
>>
>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> CXF world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> dOSGi.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was
>>>>>>>> annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> i.e.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> unchanged
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> server-side
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> application from the get-go?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> think
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> more
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> intrusive than Aegis/simple.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> questions
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> RFC 119 webinar. One of his answers sparked another question,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>> than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> community a
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> crack
>>>>>>>>> at it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> strategy to
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> with DOSGI. Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> I
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>>> that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves the
>>>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>>>> from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities. But it doesn't make
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> sense for
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> right
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>> the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> easily
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> usable
>>>>>>>>> cross-platform. I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> wsdl
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be
>>>>>>>>> configurable
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the DOSGI reference implementation? If so, I'd be happy to
>>>>>>>>>
> work
>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> on a
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> patch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
> http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar
>
>> .html
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Josh Holtzman
Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
jholtzman@berkeley.edu
510.529.9225
RE: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@progress.com>.
Hi
Please see my last reply to Dan.
If multiple frontends are involved in a given OSGI container instance
then it might be not possible. As I said, I'm supporting the proposed
two properties but suggesting a possibility for a databinding one be
overridden on a per-frontend basis. That said I'm ok with not
considering this option until it's actually required - I reckon it will
be relatively simple to fix when needed.
Cheers, Sergey
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Holtzman [mailto:jholtzman@berkeley.edu]
Sent: 05 June 2009 22:04
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
I think this can all be handled with just two properties:
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding=[ jaxb | xmlbeans | aegis (default) ]
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend=[ jaxws | jaxrs | simple (default) ]
This way, you can just mix and match. Does that meet your needs?
I haven't seen a ClientProxyFactoryBean equivalent that uses JAX-RS in
the way that JaxWsProxyFactoryBean creates client proxies for JAX-WS.
Is that what you're working on?
Josh
Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning to integrate JAX-RS runtime into a DOSGi as well.
>
> One can consider that
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple
>
> is a default property.
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws
>
> would cause a jaxws frontend be used.
>
> Perhaps
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs
>
> can indicate that JAX-RS should be used.
>
> Now both jaxws and jaxrs can use JAXB, and as Dan said even simple
> frontend can use JAXB. And all of them can use Aegis
>
> So as far as databinding is concerned, should it be rather
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.jaxb
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.xmlbeans
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.jaxb
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis (default)
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.jaxb
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.aegis
>
> etc
>
> so that a databinding can be applied selectively, on a per-frontend
> basis ?
>
> May be properties like org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb can serve
> as a global property which has to apply to all frontends, that is if
is
> is set then even a simple frontend should use JAXB, but a property
like
>
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis
>
> can be used to override it
>
> cheers, Sergey
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Holtzman [mailto:jholtzman@berkeley.edu]
> Sent: 05 June 2009 21:30
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
>
> I'm the confused one :) I was conflating the two. Daniel Kulp
pointed
> this out in the Jira ticket, and I've changed the patch so it now
> watches for two properties: org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb and
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws. If the first is true, the jaxb
> databinding is used instead of aegis. If the second property is true,
> the jaxws frontend is used rather than the simple frontend.
>
> Josh
>
> Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> I'm confused. Generally, it's Aegis versus JAX-B and Simple versus
>> JAX-WS. Are you really replacing Simple with JAX-WS, or are you
>> replacing both?
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Holtzman
<jh...@berkeley.edu>
>>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> I'm finally coming back to looking at this issue. I've added a Jira
>>>
> and a
>
>>> patch at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2252
>>>
>>> Let me know if there's anything I can do to clean up the patch.
>>>
> Since the
>
>>> current Aegis databinding remains the default, I'm hoping that this
>>>
> patch
>
>>> can be merged without causing any problems.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Josh
>>>
>>> Josh Holtzman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Right. In the SOA world, the WSDL is the service contract. In the
>>>>
> Java
>
>>>> world, the interface is the service contract. I therefore see no
>>>>
> problem
>
>>>> using JAX-WS annotations on the Java interfaces, since they
describe
>>>>
> how to
>
>>>> translate between Java and WSDL.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Josh
>>>>
>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to
>>>>>
> Sergey.
>
>>>>> So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS
>>>>> annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Eoghan,
>>>>>> Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the
>>>>>>
> service
>
>>>>>> interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't
break
>>>>>>
> the
>
>>>>>> OSGI
>>>>>> service model. Perhaps I should explain my use case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are building an open source system that must be able to
operate
>>>>>>
> in
>
>>>>>> both a
>>>>>> co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology. For the
co-located
>>>>>> flavor,
>>>>>> we don't want to incur the overhead of web service
>>>>>>
> serialization... we
>
>>>>>> want
>>>>>> direct access to the java services as they were published to the
>>>>>>
> OSGI
>
>>>>>> service registry. For the distributed topology, we want to allow
>>>>>> adopting
>>>>>> institutions to swap out individual services for their own
>>>>>> implementations
>>>>>> in other languages. And finally, we want our service clients to
>>>>>>
> be
>
>>>>>> ignorant
>>>>>> of the current topology. Service developers should enable their
>>>>>> services to
>>>>>> be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote
property
>>>>>>
> and
>
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the
>>>>>>
> services to
>
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> remote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks
>>>>>>
> wanting
>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> stick with aegis/simple. But it does allow projects that want
all
>>>>>>
> of
>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable
>>>>>>
> outside of
>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> CXF world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with
>>>>>>>
> dOSGi.
>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was
>>>>>>> annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense?
>>>>>>>
> i.e.
>
>>>>>>> if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely
>>>>>>>
> unchanged
>
>>>>>>> OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS
>>>>>>>
> server-side
>
>>>>>>> application from the get-go?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to
>>>>>>>
> think
>
>>>>>>> through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's
>>>>>>>
> more
>
>>>>>>> intrusive than Aegis/simple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing
>>>>>>>>
> questions
>
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> RFC 119 webinar. One of his answers sparked another question,
>>>>>>>>
> and
>
>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>> than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF
>>>>>>>>
> community a
>
>>>>>>>> crack
>>>>>>>> at it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding
>>>>>>>>
> strategy to
>
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> with DOSGI. Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired".
>>>>>>>>
> I
>
>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>> that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves the
>>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>>> from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities. But it doesn't make
>>>>>>>>
> sense for
>
>>>>>>>> cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions
>>>>>>>>
> right
>
>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>> the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not
>>>>>>>>
> easily
>
>>>>>>>> usable
>>>>>>>> cross-platform. I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a
>>>>>>>>
> wsdl
>
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be
>>>>>>>> configurable
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the DOSGI reference implementation? If so, I'd be happy to
work
>>>>>>>>
> on a
>
>>>>>>>> patch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>
http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar
> .html
>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Josh Holtzman
>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>> 510.529.9225
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Josh Holtzman
Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
jholtzman@berkeley.edu
510.529.9225
Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
Posted by Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>.
I think this can all be handled with just two properties:
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding=[ jaxb | xmlbeans | aegis (default) ]
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend=[ jaxws | jaxrs | simple (default) ]
This way, you can just mix and match. Does that meet your needs?
I haven't seen a ClientProxyFactoryBean equivalent that uses JAX-RS in
the way that JaxWsProxyFactoryBean creates client proxies for JAX-WS.
Is that what you're working on?
Josh
Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning to integrate JAX-RS runtime into a DOSGi as well.
>
> One can consider that
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple
>
> is a default property.
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws
>
> would cause a jaxws frontend be used.
>
> Perhaps
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs
>
> can indicate that JAX-RS should be used.
>
> Now both jaxws and jaxrs can use JAXB, and as Dan said even simple
> frontend can use JAXB. And all of them can use Aegis
>
> So as far as databinding is concerned, should it be rather
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.jaxb
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.xmlbeans
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.jaxb
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis (default)
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.jaxb
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.aegis
>
> etc
>
> so that a databinding can be applied selectively, on a per-frontend
> basis ?
>
> May be properties like org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb can serve
> as a global property which has to apply to all frontends, that is if is
> is set then even a simple frontend should use JAXB, but a property like
>
>
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis
>
> can be used to override it
>
> cheers, Sergey
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Holtzman [mailto:jholtzman@berkeley.edu]
> Sent: 05 June 2009 21:30
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
>
> I'm the confused one :) I was conflating the two. Daniel Kulp pointed
> this out in the Jira ticket, and I've changed the patch so it now
> watches for two properties: org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb and
> org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws. If the first is true, the jaxb
> databinding is used instead of aegis. If the second property is true,
> the jaxws frontend is used rather than the simple frontend.
>
> Josh
>
> Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> I'm confused. Generally, it's Aegis versus JAX-B and Simple versus
>> JAX-WS. Are you really replacing Simple with JAX-WS, or are you
>> replacing both?
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>
>>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> I'm finally coming back to looking at this issue. I've added a Jira
>>>
> and a
>
>>> patch at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2252
>>>
>>> Let me know if there's anything I can do to clean up the patch.
>>>
> Since the
>
>>> current Aegis databinding remains the default, I'm hoping that this
>>>
> patch
>
>>> can be merged without causing any problems.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Josh
>>>
>>> Josh Holtzman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Right. In the SOA world, the WSDL is the service contract. In the
>>>>
> Java
>
>>>> world, the interface is the service contract. I therefore see no
>>>>
> problem
>
>>>> using JAX-WS annotations on the Java interfaces, since they describe
>>>>
> how to
>
>>>> translate between Java and WSDL.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Josh
>>>>
>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to
>>>>>
> Sergey.
>
>>>>> So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS
>>>>> annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Eoghan,
>>>>>> Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the
>>>>>>
> service
>
>>>>>> interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't break
>>>>>>
> the
>
>>>>>> OSGI
>>>>>> service model. Perhaps I should explain my use case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are building an open source system that must be able to operate
>>>>>>
> in
>
>>>>>> both a
>>>>>> co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology. For the co-located
>>>>>> flavor,
>>>>>> we don't want to incur the overhead of web service
>>>>>>
> serialization... we
>
>>>>>> want
>>>>>> direct access to the java services as they were published to the
>>>>>>
> OSGI
>
>>>>>> service registry. For the distributed topology, we want to allow
>>>>>> adopting
>>>>>> institutions to swap out individual services for their own
>>>>>> implementations
>>>>>> in other languages. And finally, we want our service clients to
>>>>>>
> be
>
>>>>>> ignorant
>>>>>> of the current topology. Service developers should enable their
>>>>>> services to
>>>>>> be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote property
>>>>>>
> and
>
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the
>>>>>>
> services to
>
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> remote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks
>>>>>>
> wanting
>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> stick with aegis/simple. But it does allow projects that want all
>>>>>>
> of
>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable
>>>>>>
> outside of
>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> CXF world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with
>>>>>>>
> dOSGi.
>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was
>>>>>>> annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense?
>>>>>>>
> i.e.
>
>>>>>>> if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely
>>>>>>>
> unchanged
>
>>>>>>> OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS
>>>>>>>
> server-side
>
>>>>>>> application from the get-go?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to
>>>>>>>
> think
>
>>>>>>> through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's
>>>>>>>
> more
>
>>>>>>> intrusive than Aegis/simple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing
>>>>>>>>
> questions
>
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> RFC 119 webinar. One of his answers sparked another question,
>>>>>>>>
> and
>
>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>> than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF
>>>>>>>>
> community a
>
>>>>>>>> crack
>>>>>>>> at it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding
>>>>>>>>
> strategy to
>
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> with DOSGI. Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired".
>>>>>>>>
> I
>
>>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>>> that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves the
>>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>>> from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities. But it doesn't make
>>>>>>>>
> sense for
>
>>>>>>>> cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions
>>>>>>>>
> right
>
>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>> the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not
>>>>>>>>
> easily
>
>>>>>>>> usable
>>>>>>>> cross-platform. I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a
>>>>>>>>
> wsdl
>
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be
>>>>>>>> configurable
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the DOSGI reference implementation? If so, I'd be happy to work
>>>>>>>>
> on a
>
>>>>>>>> patch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
> http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar
> .html
>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Josh Holtzman
>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>> 510.529.9225
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Josh Holtzman
Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
jholtzman@berkeley.edu
510.529.9225
RE: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@progress.com>.
Hi,
I'm planning to integrate JAX-RS runtime into a DOSGi as well.
One can consider that
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple
is a default property.
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws
would cause a jaxws frontend be used.
Perhaps
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs
can indicate that JAX-RS should be used.
Now both jaxws and jaxrs can use JAXB, and as Dan said even simple
frontend can use JAXB. And all of them can use Aegis
So as far as databinding is concerned, should it be rather
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.jaxb
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws.databinding.xmlbeans
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.jaxb
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis (default)
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.jaxb
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxrs.databinding.aegis
etc
so that a databinding can be applied selectively, on a per-frontend
basis ?
May be properties like org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb can serve
as a global property which has to apply to all frontends, that is if is
is set then even a simple frontend should use JAXB, but a property like
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.simple.databinding.aegis
can be used to override it
cheers, Sergey
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Holtzman [mailto:jholtzman@berkeley.edu]
Sent: 05 June 2009 21:30
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
I'm the confused one :) I was conflating the two. Daniel Kulp pointed
this out in the Jira ticket, and I've changed the patch so it now
watches for two properties: org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb and
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws. If the first is true, the jaxb
databinding is used instead of aegis. If the second property is true,
the jaxws frontend is used rather than the simple frontend.
Josh
Benson Margulies wrote:
> I'm confused. Generally, it's Aegis versus JAX-B and Simple versus
> JAX-WS. Are you really replacing Simple with JAX-WS, or are you
> replacing both?
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>
wrote:
>
>> I'm finally coming back to looking at this issue. I've added a Jira
and a
>> patch at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2252
>>
>> Let me know if there's anything I can do to clean up the patch.
Since the
>> current Aegis databinding remains the default, I'm hoping that this
patch
>> can be merged without causing any problems.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Josh
>>
>> Josh Holtzman wrote:
>>
>>> Right. In the SOA world, the WSDL is the service contract. In the
Java
>>> world, the interface is the service contract. I therefore see no
problem
>>> using JAX-WS annotations on the Java interfaces, since they describe
how to
>>> translate between Java and WSDL.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Josh
>>>
>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to
Sergey.
>>>>
>>>> So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS
>>>> annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Eoghan
>>>>
>>>> 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Eoghan,
>>>>> Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the
service
>>>>> interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't break
the
>>>>> OSGI
>>>>> service model. Perhaps I should explain my use case.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are building an open source system that must be able to operate
in
>>>>> both a
>>>>> co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology. For the co-located
>>>>> flavor,
>>>>> we don't want to incur the overhead of web service
serialization... we
>>>>> want
>>>>> direct access to the java services as they were published to the
OSGI
>>>>> service registry. For the distributed topology, we want to allow
>>>>> adopting
>>>>> institutions to swap out individual services for their own
>>>>> implementations
>>>>> in other languages. And finally, we want our service clients to
be
>>>>> ignorant
>>>>> of the current topology. Service developers should enable their
>>>>> services to
>>>>> be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote property
and
>>>>> using
>>>>> JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the
services to
>>>>> be
>>>>> remote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks
wanting
>>>>> to
>>>>> stick with aegis/simple. But it does allow projects that want all
of
>>>>> the
>>>>> benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable
outside of
>>>>> the
>>>>> CXF world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Josh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with
dOSGi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was
>>>>>> annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense?
i.e.
>>>>>> if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely
unchanged
>>>>>> OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS
server-side
>>>>>> application from the get-go?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to
think
>>>>>> through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's
more
>>>>>> intrusive than Aegis/simple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing
questions
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> RFC 119 webinar. One of his answers sparked another question,
and
>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>> than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF
community a
>>>>>>> crack
>>>>>>> at it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding
strategy to
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> with DOSGI. Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired".
I
>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>> that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves the
>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>> from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities. But it doesn't make
sense for
>>>>>>> cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions
right
>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>> the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not
easily
>>>>>>> usable
>>>>>>> cross-platform. I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a
wsdl
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be
>>>>>>> configurable
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the DOSGI reference implementation? If so, I'd be happy to work
on a
>>>>>>> patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar
.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> --
>> Josh Holtzman
>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>> 510.529.9225
>>
>>
>>
--
Josh Holtzman
Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
jholtzman@berkeley.edu
510.529.9225
Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
Posted by Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>.
I'm the confused one :) I was conflating the two. Daniel Kulp pointed
this out in the Jira ticket, and I've changed the patch so it now
watches for two properties: org.apache.cxf.dosgi.databinding.jaxb and
org.apache.cxf.dosgi.frontend.jaxws. If the first is true, the jaxb
databinding is used instead of aegis. If the second property is true,
the jaxws frontend is used rather than the simple frontend.
Josh
Benson Margulies wrote:
> I'm confused. Generally, it's Aegis versus JAX-B and Simple versus
> JAX-WS. Are you really replacing Simple with JAX-WS, or are you
> replacing both?
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> I'm finally coming back to looking at this issue. I've added a Jira and a
>> patch at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2252
>>
>> Let me know if there's anything I can do to clean up the patch. Since the
>> current Aegis databinding remains the default, I'm hoping that this patch
>> can be merged without causing any problems.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Josh
>>
>> Josh Holtzman wrote:
>>
>>> Right. In the SOA world, the WSDL is the service contract. In the Java
>>> world, the interface is the service contract. I therefore see no problem
>>> using JAX-WS annotations on the Java interfaces, since they describe how to
>>> translate between Java and WSDL.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Josh
>>>
>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to Sergey.
>>>>
>>>> So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS
>>>> annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Eoghan
>>>>
>>>> 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Eoghan,
>>>>> Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the service
>>>>> interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't break the
>>>>> OSGI
>>>>> service model. Perhaps I should explain my use case.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are building an open source system that must be able to operate in
>>>>> both a
>>>>> co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology. For the co-located
>>>>> flavor,
>>>>> we don't want to incur the overhead of web service serialization... we
>>>>> want
>>>>> direct access to the java services as they were published to the OSGI
>>>>> service registry. For the distributed topology, we want to allow
>>>>> adopting
>>>>> institutions to swap out individual services for their own
>>>>> implementations
>>>>> in other languages. And finally, we want our service clients to be
>>>>> ignorant
>>>>> of the current topology. Service developers should enable their
>>>>> services to
>>>>> be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote property and
>>>>> using
>>>>> JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the services to
>>>>> be
>>>>> remote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks wanting
>>>>> to
>>>>> stick with aegis/simple. But it does allow projects that want all of
>>>>> the
>>>>> benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable outside of
>>>>> the
>>>>> CXF world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Josh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with dOSGi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was
>>>>>> annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense? i.e.
>>>>>> if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely unchanged
>>>>>> OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS server-side
>>>>>> application from the get-go?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to think
>>>>>> through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's more
>>>>>> intrusive than Aegis/simple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing questions
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> RFC 119 webinar. One of his answers sparked another question, and
>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>> than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF community a
>>>>>>> crack
>>>>>>> at it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding strategy to
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> with DOSGI. Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired". I
>>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>>> that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves the
>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>> from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities. But it doesn't make sense for
>>>>>>> cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions right
>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>> the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not easily
>>>>>>> usable
>>>>>>> cross-platform. I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a wsdl
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be
>>>>>>> configurable
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the DOSGI reference implementation? If so, I'd be happy to work on a
>>>>>>> patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> --
>> Josh Holtzman
>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>> 510.529.9225
>>
>>
>>
--
Josh Holtzman
Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
jholtzman@berkeley.edu
510.529.9225
Re: Configuring DOSGI to use JAX-WS
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
I'm confused. Generally, it's Aegis versus JAX-B and Simple versus
JAX-WS. Are you really replacing Simple with JAX-WS, or are you
replacing both?
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I'm finally coming back to looking at this issue. I've added a Jira and a
> patch at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2252
>
> Let me know if there's anything I can do to clean up the patch. Since the
> current Aegis databinding remains the default, I'm hoping that this patch
> can be merged without causing any problems.
>
> Thanks,
> Josh
>
> Josh Holtzman wrote:
>>
>> Right. In the SOA world, the WSDL is the service contract. In the Java
>> world, the interface is the service contract. I therefore see no problem
>> using JAX-WS annotations on the Java interfaces, since they describe how to
>> translate between Java and WSDL.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Josh
>>
>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry Josh, I didn't notice your response before replying to Sergey.
>>>
>>> So in your case, it wouldn't actually be an issue that the JAX-WS
>>> annotations were present on the OSGi service class?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Eoghan
>>>
>>> 2009/5/12 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Eoghan,
>>>> Yes, it would most likely require JAX-WS annotations on the service
>>>> interfaces rather than the impl classes, but IMHO it doesn't break the
>>>> OSGI
>>>> service model. Perhaps I should explain my use case.
>>>>
>>>> We are building an open source system that must be able to operate in
>>>> both a
>>>> co-located (one JVM) and distributed topology. For the co-located
>>>> flavor,
>>>> we don't want to incur the overhead of web service serialization... we
>>>> want
>>>> direct access to the java services as they were published to the OSGI
>>>> service registry. For the distributed topology, we want to allow
>>>> adopting
>>>> institutions to swap out individual services for their own
>>>> implementations
>>>> in other languages. And finally, we want our service clients to be
>>>> ignorant
>>>> of the current topology. Service developers should enable their
>>>> services to
>>>> be available remotely (by publishing with the osgi.remote property and
>>>> using
>>>> JAX-WS annotations), but should not necessarily expect the services to
>>>> be
>>>> remote.
>>>>
>>>> Providing a JAX-WS configuration option shouldn't impact folks wanting
>>>> to
>>>> stick with aegis/simple. But it does allow projects that want all of
>>>> the
>>>> benefits of DOSGI to make their web service contracts usable outside of
>>>> the
>>>> CXF world.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Josh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not entirely sold on the desirability of using JAX-WS with dOSGi.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't this require that the original OSGi service class was
>>>>> annotated with @WebService, @WebMethod etc?
>>>>>
>>>>> And wouldn't this defeat the whole purpose of dOSGi in a sense? i.e.
>>>>> if the remotability isn't enabled transparently on a largely unchanged
>>>>> OSGi application, why not just write a straight JAX-WS server-side
>>>>> application from the get-go?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry if I'm slightly missing the point here. I just wanted to think
>>>>> through the implications of using a databinding/frontend that's more
>>>>> intrusive than Aegis/simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Eoghan
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/5/11 Josh Holtzman <jh...@berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just read David Bosschaert's blog entry [1] addressing questions
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> RFC 119 webinar. One of his answers sparked another question, and
>>>>>> rather
>>>>>> than contact him directly, I decided to give the wider CXF community a
>>>>>> crack
>>>>>> at it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to have the option to specify which databinding strategy to
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> with DOSGI. Currently, the Aegis databinding is "hard wired". I
>>>>>> recognize
>>>>>> that this makes sense for most use cases, since it relieves the
>>>>>> developer
>>>>>> from any wsdl or xsd responsibilities. But it doesn't make sense for
>>>>>> cross-platform use cases (which, interestingly, David mentions right
>>>>>> after
>>>>>> the question "Why don't you use JaxWS?").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The default wsdls produced by the Aegis databinding are not easily
>>>>>> usable
>>>>>> cross-platform. I wouldn't want to provide a developer with a wsdl
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> specifies arg0, arg1, and arg2 as argument names, for example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there interest in allowing the databinding strategy to be
>>>>>> configurable
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the DOSGI reference implementation? If so, I'd be happy to work on a
>>>>>> patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-from-rfc-119-webinar.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Josh Holtzman
>>>> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
>>>> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
>>>> 510.529.9225
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> --
> Josh Holtzman
> Educational Technology Services, UC Berkeley
> jholtzman@berkeley.edu
> 510.529.9225
>
>