You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> on 2010/12/15 01:18:55 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1049357 - in /cxf/branches/2.3.x-fixes: rt/bindings/soap/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/binding/soap/interceptor/ rt/bindings/soap/src/test/java/org/apache/cxf/binding/soap/ systests/jaxws/src/test/java/org/apache/cxf/systest/handlers/
Jim,
On Tuesday 14 December 2010 7:07:47 pm ema@apache.org wrote:
> MustUnderstandEndingInterceptor(); +
> public MustUnderstandInterceptor() {
> super(Phase.PRE_PROTOCOL);
> }
> @@ -80,12 +83,18 @@ public class MustUnderstandInterceptor e
> checkUnderstand(mustUnderstandHeaders, mustUnderstandQNames,
> notUnderstandHeaders);
>
> if (!notUnderstandHeaders.isEmpty()) {
> - throw new SoapFault(new Message("MUST_UNDERSTAND", BUNDLE,
> notUnderstandHeaders), -
> soapVersion.getMustUnderstand());
> + SoapFault soapFault = new SoapFault(new
> Message("MUST_UNDERSTAND", BUNDLE, notUnderstandHeaders), +
> soapVersion.getMustUnderstand()); +
> if (!isRequestor(soapMessage)) {
> + soapMessage.put(MustUnderstandInterceptor.FAULT,
> soapFault); + } else {
> + throw soapFault;
> + }
> }
> if (!ultimateReceiverHeaders.isEmpty() &&
> !isRequestor(soapMessage)) {
> checkUltimateReceiverHeaders(ultimateReceiverHeaders,
> mustUnderstandQNames, soapMessage); }
> + soapMessage.getInterceptorChain().add(ending);
> }
Can this be optimized a bit? Basically, could the call to:
soapMessage.getInterceptorChain().add(ending);
be placed into the
if (!isRequestor(soapMessage)) {
block? Since the interceptor only does anything if that block is called, we
don't need to add it for every invokation. Right?
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog
Re: svn commit: r1049357 - in /cxf/branches/2.3.x-fixes:
rt/bindings/soap/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/binding/soap/interceptor/
rt/bindings/soap/src/test/java/org/apache/cxf/binding/soap/ systests/jaxws/src/test/java/org/apache/cxf/systest/handlers/
Posted by Jim Ma <ma...@gmail.com>.
Right , Dan. No need to add this interceptor in the client side.
Thanks for the review and committed the optimized code in revision 1049415.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
>
> On Tuesday 14 December 2010 7:07:47 pm ema@apache.org wrote:
>> MustUnderstandEndingInterceptor(); +
>> public MustUnderstandInterceptor() {
>> super(Phase.PRE_PROTOCOL);
>> }
>> @@ -80,12 +83,18 @@ public class MustUnderstandInterceptor e
>> checkUnderstand(mustUnderstandHeaders, mustUnderstandQNames,
>> notUnderstandHeaders);
>>
>> if (!notUnderstandHeaders.isEmpty()) {
>> - throw new SoapFault(new Message("MUST_UNDERSTAND", BUNDLE,
>> notUnderstandHeaders), -
>> soapVersion.getMustUnderstand());
>> + SoapFault soapFault = new SoapFault(new
>> Message("MUST_UNDERSTAND", BUNDLE, notUnderstandHeaders), +
>> soapVersion.getMustUnderstand()); +
>> if (!isRequestor(soapMessage)) {
>> + soapMessage.put(MustUnderstandInterceptor.FAULT,
>> soapFault); + } else {
>> + throw soapFault;
>> + }
>> }
>> if (!ultimateReceiverHeaders.isEmpty() &&
>> !isRequestor(soapMessage)) {
>> checkUltimateReceiverHeaders(ultimateReceiverHeaders,
>> mustUnderstandQNames, soapMessage); }
>> + soapMessage.getInterceptorChain().add(ending);
>> }
>
>
> Can this be optimized a bit? Basically, could the call to:
>
> soapMessage.getInterceptorChain().add(ending);
>
> be placed into the
> if (!isRequestor(soapMessage)) {
>
> block? Since the interceptor only does anything if that block is called, we
> don't need to add it for every invokation. Right?
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://dankulp.com/blog
>