Will providing a set of classes be sufficient, when initializing a
DataBinding from JAX-RS ?
Should it be a map instead, for Type(s) from
Method.getGenericResponseType()
Method.getGenericResponseTypes()[index]
also be available ?
thanks, Sergey
dkulp wrote:
>
>
> Basically, I think we should have:
>
> interface PropertiesInitializedDataBinding extends Databinding {
> void initialize(Map<String, Object> properties);
> }
>
> Then, we make our AbstractDataBinding implement that interface and add a
> method like:
>
> void initialize(Map<String, Object> properties) {
> Service svc = properties.get("...Service");
> if (svc != null) {
> initialize(svc);
> }
> }
>
> or similar. Other helper things (like the init(Set)) can be added to
> AbstractDataBinding or similar and called from there.
>
> Eventually (CXF 3.0), the initialize method above would get put in
> DataBinding
> and the original one removed so only one initialize method would need to
> be
> implemented.
>
> I'd prefer not to have a bunch of different init(..) methods on the
> interface
> itself that everyone HAS to implement.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu July 30 2009 9:53:36 am Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> > I think what might make sense for a short term "binary compatible" type
>> > approach is to add a new interface like "ClassSetDataBinding" or
>> > something that defines the init(...) method that is needed for JAXRS.
>> > JAX-RS can then do instanceof on the databinding to see if it WILL work
>> > for it. That way, databindings that aren't designed for it, won't get
>> > picked up. We can update the databindings built into CXF so they do
>> > work.
>> >
>> > A thought I had would be to make the new init method be:
>> > void init(Map<String, Object> properties)
>> >
>> > where we document properties that may be set. The service model is
>> one,
>> > the set of classes another.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that with properties like
>> "org.apache.cxf.databinding.classes" one will be able to do :
>>
>> Set<Class<?>> allClasses = getAllClasses(model);
>>
>> ClassSetDataBinding csdb = (ClassSetDataBinding)dataBinding;
>> csdb.init("org.apache.cxf.databinding.classes", allClasses);
>> ?
>>
>> It should definitely work for JAX-RS. I'd probably opt for having
>> 'shortcuts' for most commonly used properties by having more explicit
>> methods like init(Set<Class<?>>) & init(Service s) while retaining
>>
>> void init(Map<String, Object> properties)
>>
>> so
>>
>> csdb.init("org.apache.cxf.databinding.classes", allClasses);
>> &
>> csdb.init(allClasses);
>>
>> would be equivalent. I'm ok though with having just
>>
>> void init(Map<String, Object> properties)
>>
>> cheers, Sergey
>>
>> > Other things like extra schema locations, mtom
>> > related things, etc... The ReflectionServiceFactoryBean could be
>> > updated to use that method (if the databinding implements the new
>> > interface) to pass a map of all the configured endpoint properties.
>> > Thus, configuring some of the jaxb things could be simpler - just
>> define
>> > them in jaxws:endpoint.
>> >
>> > It's also a lot more extensible in the future.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> > On Wed July 29 2009 7:03:15 am Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> Until now it's not been possible to reuse existing CXF DataBinding
>> >> implementations in CXF JAX-RS. For example, the JAX-RS impl provides
>> its
>> >> own versions of JAXB/Aegis/XMlBeans databindings by implementing
>> JAX-RS
>> >> MessageBodyProviders.
>> >>
>> >> Resolving this issue has been on the map for a while and we've also
>> had
>> >> a chat with Dan on IRC recently.
>> >>
>> >> I've just committed the initial code which makes it possible for users
>> >> just to reuse the existing CXF DataBindings which is quite promising
>> >> given that CXF DataBindings are very well stressed and tested. Those
>> >> users who use JAXWS & JAXRS will likely find it of use, as well as
>> >> JAX-RS users who might spot some (temp) limitations in the CXF JAXRS
>> >> message body providers.
>> >>
>> >> Here's how I've implemented it at the moment. If users register a
>> >> databinding bean then what happens is that it will simply be wrapped
>> as
>> >> a JAXRS MessageBodyReader/Writer and registered as a JAX-RS provider.
>> >> Its MessageBodyWriter.writeTo and MessageBodyWriter.readFrom delegate
>> to
>> >> DataBinding DataWriter/DataReader respectively.
>> >>
>> >> I think this approach works quite well but there's something I reckon
>> >> may need to be improved. Particularly, in order to make JAX-RS
>> resource
>> >> classes' return/input classes for all the resource methods known to
>> >> DataBinding implementations the JAXRS model classes like
>> >> ClassResourceInfo & OperationResourceInfo are being temporarily
>> >> converted into a WSDL-centric Service/ServiceInfo/MessageInfp/etc
>> model
>> >> so that
>> >> DataBinding.initialize(Service s) can be called.
>> >>
>> >> This in itself might become useful later on if we were to decide on
>> >> supporting say WSDL2 but for the purpose of reusing the DataBindings
>> it
>> >> does not necessarily represents the best approach. It can get tricky
>> for
>> >> JAX-RS resources be represented well as WSDL-centric ones to meet
>> >> different expectations of different bindings, something I found during
>> >> the initial work. JAXRS resource methods might have parameters
>> >> representing say queries, alongside with request bodies, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps the better option is for every DataBinding implementation is
>> to
>> >> have a method like
>> >>
>> >> setAllClasses(Set<Class<?>> classes)
>> >> or
>> >> setTypeInfo(Map<Class<?>, Type> info)
>> >>
>> >> which would represent an alternative option for initializing a
>> >> databinding. Every CXF DataBinding would have to be updated slightly
>> to
>> >> use those classes instead of Service to gety initialized.
>> >>
>> >> JAXRS will create a required set/map and reflectively call such a
>> >> method. This method might even make it into DataBinding interface if
>> >> it's assumed that no users are directly interacting with DataBinding
>> >> interfaces.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts ?
>> >>
>> >> thanks, Sergey
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daniel Kulp
>> > dk...@apache.org
>> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dk...@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Reusing-CXF-DataBindings-in-the-JAX-RS-implementation-tp24716988p24917972.html
Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
