1:31 a.m.
Jim Ma [http://community.jboss.org/people/jim.ma] replied to the discussion
"CXF jms integration"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/540295#540295
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jim,
I've taken a look at what you did in your jms-integration branches and have some
questions / concers I'd like to discuss here. First of all let me summarize what
you've done, so we're sure that we're all on the same page.
You basically added a deployment descriptor (jbossws-endpoints.xml) parsing that produces
some new metadata in SPI (org.jboss.wsf.spi.metadata.endpoints.EndpointsMetaData). Those
are later attached to the Deployment and used by EndpointsDescriptorsDeploymentAspect (cxf
stack) to produce an instance of
org.jboss.wsf.spi.metadata.endpoints.AbstractEndpointsDeployment (namely
org.jboss.wsf.stack.cxf.deployment.CXFEndpointsDeployment), with a spring configuration
file generated from the metadata. CXFEndpointsDeployment is later deployed by the
KernelDeploymentDeployer and is responsible for generating the CXF Bus through the
BusHolder, creating a new spi endpoint and adding it to the registry. Before handing over
to the KernelDeploymentDeployer, the WSEndpointsRealDeployer (container integration) sets
the proper depedencies for ensuring the bean is deployed after any JMS destination bean
attached to the current deployment unit.
Thanks for the comments and ideas. Yes. We are in the same page .
* jbossws-endpoints.xml: generally speaking, I would allow users to avoid providing that
in most cases. AFAICS, the reason for that file is just in getting the information on
which jms destinations are to be used for the endpoints included in the deployment. I
think this can also be specified through a user provided jboss-cxf.xml, hence we need to
allow for that too.
There are following reasons I named it to general jbossws-endpoint.xml and not
jms-endpoints.xml:
a) Considering our spi framework and IL architecture, we can only creat the deployer in IL
. That means the deployer is stack neutral and it should not only parse/deploy the stack
specific deployment descriptor : for example jboss-cxf.xml.
b) There are other transports supported in CXF : invm, jbi. We can extend this file to
support them . So it is only for jms transport .
c) Combine our features (eg, jaxbintro configuration xml) and jbossws-endpoint.xml to
generated CXF deployment configuraiton.
Moreover, something else we should probably evaluate implementing
(perhaps in CXF?) is an annotation for setting those destinations on the endpoint class
(@JMSTransport or something like that). That said, yes, a user might still want to use
xml for providing that info, in which case a configuration file like
jbossws-endpoints.xml is fine.
Good point . This is my fourth reason to name it jbossws-endpoints.xml. The jms
configuration can be defined in wsdl file, so user only need to specify the endpoint class
name to deploy jms endpoints in CXF. We also need use this to enable the soap over jms
in CXF .
* new SPI metadata: besides the naming not completely convincing me,
I think the few info we need (jms destination addresses currently) should live at the
Endpoint level, not higher than that and separated from that as they currently are in
jms-integration branch. Jim, did you evaluate having a hierarchy for the SPI Endpoint
(with the current one becoming HttpEndpoint and a new JMSEndpoint having the
destinations' info)?
I evaluated to make new SPI metadata to extend the current SPI Endpoint. But I did not
find benifit from it, as our DeploymentAspects was intended to process the SPI
HttpEndpoint. It can
not be reused to process JMSEndpoint too. Now I took the new SPI metadata as flag to
dispatch the jms endpoint deployment . New created DeploymentAspect to deploy the jms
endpoint and old DeploymentAspects to deploy http endpoint .
Still on this topic, we might probably create the SPI JMSEndpoint at
the same time as the Http one (currently the WSDeploymentBuilder::build seems to me to
be creating the Deployment only, while the Endpoint is actually created later by the
CXFEndpointsDeployment). The CXFEndpointsDeployment should probably just do the endpoint
registration (perhaps even that can unified..?), with already existing spi endpoints
This is because the jms SPI Endpoint does not need the exsiting DeploymentAspect
to process, and jms SPI Endpoint is created just for registry, and it's in different
deploy flow. Do you see any other points we need to unify and reuse DeploymentAspect ?
* WSEndpointsReadDeployer: while I was not able to think about this
solution before for the destinations dependency management, what I don't like here is
that it's not part of our DA group. Where does it run in the deployers' chain?
can we unify things here (make it a DA)?
It is running after the last
DeploymentAspectDeployer and before KernelDeploymentDeployer. It's not possible to
unify it to a DA. It needs the As dependency to create a BeanMetaData.
* do you already know whether the proposed architecture is going to
work with CXF 2.3 SOAP-over-JMS-1.0 support too (
http://cxf.apache.org/docs/soap-over-jms-10-support.html
http://cxf.apache.org/docs/soap-over-jms-10-support.html)?
Yes. It supports the
soap-over-jms. The current deployer architcture supports to deploy the endpoint class with
wsdl file .
I also uses the "soap-over-jms spec" style jms address to reprents the endpoint
address for spec "alignment" .
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/540295#540295]
Start a new discussion in JBoss Web Services Development at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&...]
5354
days inactive
5354
days old
0 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Jim Ma