Hi Charles, If we only support jetty, that will be fine. But to support tomcat, we need a component that avoids using jetty's websocket API directly. In this aspect, camel-cxf is different because its servlet is not web-container specific and can also be used in a gemini/tomcat based OSGi environment, as long as there is a mechanism for its servlet to get registered. So there is this decoupling to the web container implementation.
Going for atmosphere will provide a similar decoupling. regards, aki 2013/9/10 Charles Moulliard <ch0...@gmail.com>: > Hi Aki, > > As the camel-websocket component uses Jetty + WebSocket servlet of Jetty, > that should not be a big change to add a property for the endpoint to > request that we use Jetty deployed in Karaf, Felix, ... instead of creating > a local jetty instance. This is what we do with camel-cxf endpoint > > Regards, > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Aki Yoshida <elak...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have been looking into the websocket component and I was wondering >> about a few things. >> >> First of all, I would like to make the component use the framework's >> servlet if it's running in e.g., an OSGi container like karaf that has >> jetty or another container that uses geminiweb/tomcat. I was using >> Atmosphere to have the framework's servlet container picked up in both >> environments. >> >> I saw ticket CAMEL-5353 "camel-atmosphere - A new component for >> portable websocket integration" and this seems to imply the >> introduction of a new atmosphere specific component that might go >> beyond the websocket functionality. Or is this intended for just a new >> websocket component? I think Claus created this ticket when there was >> a question in the mailing list about making the component work with >> tomcat. I don't know its scope and status and if someone is working >> on this. >> >> Another thing I was wondering about is that we should also have a >> client-side websocket so that we can post data to an external >> websocket. As the current websocket's producer mode writes back to the >> server side websocket, we will need a new syntax for this usage, maybe >> using the ws URL. This could be used in both the producer and consumer >> modes as in the websocket component. >> >> If you could comment on this, that would be very appreciated. >> >> Thanks. >> regards, aki >> > > > > -- > Charles Moulliard > Apache Committer / Architect @RedHat > Twitter : @cmoulliard | Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
