Hi Sergey, all, Thank you for your answer Sergey! It seems I'm still figuring out what CXF actually does and what not (e.g. in comparison to Camel). If I got it correct now CXF exists to cover Services (i.e. request -> response pattern) while Camel covers message based applications. Is that correct?
In that case I wonder if my question makes any sense with regard to what I want to realize for my application. My WebSocket API is message-based, although there's a custom request->response pattern built on top (in addition to e.g. events being pushed from server to client). My use-case is the following: I want to provide a number of "service endpoints" like this: SOAP/HTTP-based Web Services (JAX-WS) http://myserver/soap/v1.0/ http://myserver/soap/v2.0/ HTTP-based REST API (JAX-RS) http://myserver/rest/v1.0/ http://myserver/rest/v2.0/ WebSockets message-based API http://myserver/websocket/v1.0/ http://myserver/websocket/v2.0/ Do you have an idea how to tackle this use case in an elegant manner? The current implementation I'm trying to refactor is a "grown architecture" and uses an Jetty with Jersey for JAX-RS, Grizzly with Metro for JAX-WS and Netty for WebSockets, all servers running on different ports... Cheers, Daniel On 04.01.2013, at 11:37, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On 04/01/13 13:14, Daniel Bimschas wrote: >> Hi there and a happy new year to all of you! >> > Same to you! >> I'm new to CXF and currently trying to run all APIs of my application on top >> of CXF (JAX-WS, JAX-RS and WebSocket API). Until now, I couldn't find out if >> there's support for WebSockets in CXF. Is there any? >> >> Being executed in the embedded Jetty it shouldn't be a problem >> technically... I would also be happy to just have an API to publish a >> WebSocketServlet directly in the embedded Jetty. >> > I'm hoping this can be prioritized either in CXF 2.8.x or shortly afterwards, > ideally earlier than later, > > Andrei wrote a very informative wiki page about creating custom transports, > http://cxf.apache.org/docs/custom-transport.html > > I guess supporting WebSockets would amount to creating a server-only > transport; I'm not sure yet if it would be better enhancing the existing CXF > http-jetty transport instead or not > > Cheers, Sergey > >> Best regards, >> Daniel >
