Is the plan to release an opencmis 1.0 version as soon as cmis 1.1 is supported as well?
Thanks Oli ________________________________________ From: Florian Müller [[email protected]] Sent: 22 March 2013 19:30 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: CXF support as web services stack in opencmis OpenCMIS doesn't rely on generic JAX-WS. It uses RI classes to make use of certain features. We have never stated that it works with other implementations and explicitly said that it doesn't work with CXF. We even have specific packages for WebSphere and WebLogic to use their native stacks. The sad truth is that JAX-WS implementations behave so differently when it comes to attachments and streaming that we need specific code for each of them. Most OpenCMIS users don't use the Web Services binding anyway and therefore don't have an issue. The other bindings are significantly faster and require fewer dependencies. But I have to revisit the Web Services code anyway for the CMIS 1.1 implementation. There have to be some major code changes, if we don't want a lot of duplicated code for CMIS 1.0 and CMIS 1.1. I will reevaluate CXF for this. - Florian > On Mar 22, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Florian Müller<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> Thanks for the clarifications. The foundation of the OpenCMIS Web Services >> code has been written in 2009. We evaluated CFX at this point and concluded >> that we have to go with RI. CXF couldn't handle attachments in the way we >> needed it. It looks like a lot has changed since then. >> >> But even if the content is buffered in a temporary file, this is an issue - >> at least on the client side. Two real world examples: >> - There are business requirements not to store any confidential documents >> unencrypted on a hard disk. A temporary file would violate this. > > Actually, CXF DOES have settings to allow the temp files to be completely > encrypted. :-) > >> - A document could be a 4GB video file. Apart from the performance penalty >> of buffering it on disk, the client has to have enough free temp space. > > Yea. That's still an issue. That said, after thinking about it, I > *THINK* (I'd have to verify), that the last attachment is not buffered to > disk, it remains streaming. I don't know enough about the CMIS stuff to > know if multiple attachments are sent or not. > >> True content streaming is not a nice-to-have; it's a real requirement. >> Storing the content on disks prevents Out Of Memory exceptions, but opens >> another can of worms. > > Right. Going with the implementation specific API's is certainly the most > reliable, but the way OpenCMIS does that is not reliable. > >> We have seen OpenCMIS not working in CXF environments. Depending on the >> classloading, setting the javax.xml.ws.spi.Provider helps in some cases to >> coexist there. It's not a silver bullet, though. >> I'm not sure auto detection helps here. As a developer I want full control >> and either I consciously flip a switch or deploy another Jar. Otherwise >> finding the cause of different behaviors becomes rather difficult. I also >> have to know which dependency Jars I have to deploy in the first place. > > If you need that level of control, you CANNOT rely on the JAX-WS API's (or > generated service objects actually). You'd need to drop down to the > implementations direct API's to make sure you get the appropriate > implementation. Otherwise, you would always be relying on things like > classpath ordering and system properties and also opening up the possibility > to cause other applications running in the same VM to break. For example, > within Karaf (OSGi), if CXF is installed first, you would ALWAYS be getting > CXF. Your /META-INF/... stuff would not be looked at. However, if your > client bundle is installed first, you would break anything that require CXF > (unless they are using CXF's API's directly or spring or blueprint, which > admittedly is the recommend approach in OSGi). > >> As I already said, CXF support would be great. I had to work around a lot of >> RI quirks to make it work for all OpenCMIS scenarios. My gut feeling tells >> me that CXF is just different and still needs some extra work. > > "Different" is likely the right word. > > Dan > > >> - Florian >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 21, 2013, at 7:31 PM, Florian Müller<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Oliver, >>>> >>>> It is not about MTOM and streaming. All JAX-WS frameworks can do that >>>> today. It is about handling SOAP headers. The JAX-WS specification forces >>>> a JAX-WS implementation to load the whole message (including attachments) >>>> in memory when the SOAP headers should be touched. >>> Actually, that's not true. The JAX-WS specification does not >>> dictate that. It dictates that the entire SAAJ model must be >>> created, but not that attachments need to be loaded into memory. >>> Different JAX-WS stacks do different things with this. I think the >>> RI does resolve the MTOM stuff first which does load it in memory. >>> For CXF, the attachments are pulled off the stream, but stored in tmp >>> files on disk, not in memory. The MTOM nodes are left "as is" in >>> the SAAJ model. Thus, you just get the contents of the SOAP part of >>> the mime multipart in memory, not the full thing. >>> >>>> Therefore, the standard way of handling SOAP headers is not feasible for >>>> OpenCMIS. One big document can easily cause an Out Of Memory exception. >>>> That's not a specific problem of a specific JAX-WS implementation, but a >>>> JAX-WS specification problem and therefore all implementations. >>> No, not true. That said, I'd still use the proprietary API's if >>> just dealing with application level headers. For the stuff Oli needs >>> related to SAML and security, I'd let the stack handle it the way it >>> needs to handle it. >>> >>>> All JAX-WS implementations have proprietary APIs to work around that. But >>>> if the CXF WS-SecurityPolicies implementation (which I don't know) uses >>>> the standard APIs then you probably will run into memory issues sooner or >>>> later. If you can handle that risk, CXF might work for you. >>> For CXF, we CURRENTLY would still need the full SAAJ model (but see >>> above about the attachments) for the SOAP part. We're working on a >>> WSS4J 2.0 version that would allow streaming with WS-Security which >>> would resolve even that issue. That's a bit off though. >>> >>>> You are actually not the first, who wants to make CXF work. See this mail >>>> thread: >>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/chemistry-dev/201208.mbox/%3C503E653C.9050903%40apache.org%3E >>>> >>>> Making it work is not the problem. Making it work without the danger of a >>>> memory issue is difficult. >>> There is nothing that the RI does to mitigate this that CXF doesn't also do. >>> >>>> Another reason why CXF is not our first choice is, that its needs Jars in >>>> an endorsed directory. That's a deal-breaker for many projects that want >>>> to use OpenCMIS. Today, OpenCMIS requires Oracles JAX-WS RI 2.1.7. This is >>>> not the latest version of JAX-WS RI for the same reason. JAX-WS RI 2.2.x >>>> also needs Jars in an endorsed directory. >>> Uhmm… Another mis-conception. If we required that, then CXF >>> wouldn't work very well for anyone using Maven on Java 6. :-) >>> >>> Seriously, CXF does not require anything to be endorsed unless you >>> need the 2.2 specific API's and such. If only the the 2.1 API's are >>> found on the classpath and you only use the 2.1 API's, youi are fine. >>> The CXF code generator by default does generate 2.2 code (per spec >>> requirement). However, we do have flags to have it generate 2.1 >>> restricted code. Most of our examples now set that flag so they >>> work "out of the box" without any sort of endorsed jars, even on >>> java6. >>> >>>> I don't want to stop you from making it work. Having CXF support would be >>>> great for OpenCMIS. So, please go ahead and provide a patch. But I don't >>>> see that CXF will become our preferred stack in the future. >>> I'm wondering if it would be all possible or preferable to have some >>> level of auto detection of which stack is being used after the "new >>> XYZService(…)" calls (or after the getXYZPort() calls) and handle the >>> various things more automatically. Right now, if the CXF jars are on >>> the classpath prior to the Chemistry one, you would still end up using >>> CXF anyway. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>>> - Florian >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Florian >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the feedback. CXF supports MTOM and streaming out-of-the-box >>>>> without any implementation specific dependencies. I think it should by >>>>> quite easy to integrate CXF as a web services stack in chemistry. The >>>>> security part is then enforced by WS-SecurityPolicies without a lot of >>>>> API usage. >>>>> >>>>> I'll give it a try. Would you look into this if I raise a JIRA and apply >>>>> a patch including unit testing? >>>>> >>>>> Are there non resolvable issues do improve performance for the Web >>>>> Services Binding? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Oli >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------ >>>>> >>>>> Oliver Wulff >>>>> Blog: http://owulff.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: Florian Müller [[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: 21 March 2013 12:38 >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Cc: Oliver Wulff >>>>> Subject: Re: CXF support as web services stack in opencmis >>>>> >>>>> Hi Oliver, >>>>> >>>>> There is no active development around CXF support at the moment (see >>>>> [1] why). >>>>> >>>>> But what you want is a custom authentication provider [2]. The easiest >>>>> way to build one is to copy the standard authentication provider code >>>>> [3] and modify it. We (SAP) have implemented SAML support for our >>>>> infrastructure. So that's doable. WS-Trust STS might be trickier, but >>>>> certainly possible. >>>>> >>>>> Apart from that, you might want to consider using a different binding. >>>>> The Web Services binding is pretty slow compared to the other two >>>>> bindings. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Florian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/chemistry-dev/201206.mbox/%3C4FDF8B71.9020108%40apache.org%3E >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> http://chemistry.apache.org/java/developing/client/dev-client-bindings.html#OpenCMISClientBindings-CustomAuthenticationProvider >>>>> >>>>> [3] >>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/chemistry/opencmis/trunk/chemistry-opencmis-client/chemistry-opencmis-client-bindings/src/main/java/org/apache/chemistry/opencmis/client/bindings/spi/StandardAuthenticationProvider.java >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi there >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm looking into the usage of opencmis to interact with a CMS system. >>>>>> This worked fine with basic security. Currently, username/password is >>>>>> supported with HTTP Basic Authentication or WS-Security >>>>>> UsernameToken. >>>>>> In our case, the CMIS client is deployed in a web application which >>>>>> must sent requests on behalf of the web application user. So far, we >>>>>> used SAML and the WS-Trust STS which is supported by Apache CXF. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've spotted the following class CXFPortProvider but it is not >>>>>> active. Is there any other work ongoing in supporting CXF and any >>>>>> other WS-Security tokens? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Oli >
