You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Unreal Jiang <si...@yahoo.com> on 2007/02/06 07:42:14 UTC
RE: Proposal for chaning CXF Interceptor APIs. WAS: RE: When should we close the handlers in CXF?
Hi,
Looks like there has no opponent for jervis' proposal, I will create a jira task for this proposal and sign it me.
Cheers
Unreal
"Liu, Jervis" <jl...@iona.com> wrote:
________________________________
From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
Sent: Tue 1/23/2007 1:02 AM
To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposal for chaning CXF Interceptor APIs. WAS: RE: When should we close the handlers in CXF?
On 1/22/07, Liu, Jervis wrote:
>
> Hi, I would like to summarize what we have been discussed in this thread
> (including Eoghan's proposal posted last Oct [1]) regarding Interceptor API
> changes. Any comments would be appreciated.
>
> Currently our Interceptor APIs look like below:
>
> public interface Interceptor {
> void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
> void handleFault(T message);
> }
>
> Also in the interceptor chain, we have a notion of sub-chain or
> interceptor chain reentrance by calling message.getInterceptorChain().doIntercept(message)
> or message.getInterceptorChain().doInterceptInSubChain(message).
>
> The main issues we have with the current implementation are:
>
> 1. Fault handling. See Eoghag's email [1]
>
> 2. Sub-chain reentrance. See previous discussion in this thread.
>
> We propose to change Interceptor API as below:
>
> public interface Interceptor {
> void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
> void handleFault(T message);
> void close(T message);
> }
>
> handleFault(T message) method is used to process fault message (which is
> done by handleMessage() in fault-chain currently).
> I'm not sure I understand how you want to use this. I guess I could see two
> ways
> 1. Remove In/OutFault interceptors and call handleFault on the In/Out
> interceptors. I don't know that mapping works especially well though.
> 2. Don't call handleFault on in/out interceptors, but only on the
> in/outFault interceptors - this would mean, for example, that the logic from
> Soap11OutFaultInterceptor would be moved from the handleMessage to
> handleFault.
> Can you be more specific about what you mean?
Sorry, after rethinking about this, I've changed my mind slightly, so here is the idea:
CXF Interceptor API will be similiar to JAX-WS API, section 9.3.2.1.
Throw ProtocolException or a subclass This indicates that normal message processing should cease.
Subsequent actions depend on whether the MEP in use requires a response to the message currently
being processed or not:
Response: Normal message processing stops, fault message processing starts. The message direction
is reversed, if the message is not already a fault message then it is replaced with a fault message4,
and the runtime invokes handleFault on the next handler or dispatches the message (see
section 9.1.2.2) if there are no further handlers.
No response: Normal message processing stops, close is called on each previously invoked handler
in the chain, the exception is dispatched (see section 9.1.2.3).
Throw any other runtime exception This indicates that normal message processing should cease. Subse-
quent actions depend on whether the MEP in use includes a response to the message currently being
processed or not:
Response: Normal message processing stops, close is called on each previously invoked handler in
the chain, the message direction is reversed, and the exception is dispatched (see section 9.1.2.3).
No response: Normal message processing stops, close is called on each previously invoked handler
in the chain, the exception is dispatched (see section 9.1.2.3).
However, the difference is CXF interceptors are not designed to hook in user logic as these JAX-WS handlers do, thus handleFault is not needed in CXF interceptors (correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the purpose that JAX-WS handlers's handleFault method designed for. I.e, when a known exception - ProtocolException occurs, handleFault() gives handler developer a hook to clean up sth, for example, roll back a transaction, this is different from what close() is supposed to do. The latter is designed to clean things up under a succeeded situation). For any Runtime exceptions thrown by interceptors, we just wrap it as soap exception then dispatch it back calling handleMessage.
So here is the change we need to make:
1. Add a postHandleMessage() into Interceptor interface
2. Remove handleFault() method from Interceptor interface. Or we can still keep it for a while until we are absolutely sure we wont need this method, but I presume there is nothing we need to do in this method.
3. We will NOT add a close() method into Interceptor interface, as CXF interceptors are stateless, there is no resources need to be closed.
public interface Interceptor {
void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
void postHandleMessage(T message);
}
When an interceptor chain ends normally, we need to call postHandleMessage() on each previously traversed interceptor in a reversed direction.
When a fault occurs on the in-bound chain, an exception will be thrown from the interceptor, after catching the exception in PhaseInterceptorChain, we unwind the current chain by calling postHandleMessage() on each previously traversed interceptor and then jump to the out-fault-chain, calling handleMessage() on each interceptor with the fault message.
Any thoughs?
> close(T message) method is called on a reverse direction at the end of
> interceptor chain or when a fault or exception occurs. Take the fault
> handling case as an example, below is how handleFault and close work
> together
> +1 to close() - Although I think Eoghan has a good point about the ordering
> not necessarily being the same. I think we need to do a little bit more
> digging before we can know whether or not sub chains can be removed.
> when a fault occurs on the in-chain, we unwind the current chain by calling
> close() on each previously traversed interceptor and then jump to the
> out-fault-chain, calling handleFault() on each interceptor with the fault
> message.
>
> Close method is also used to remove the sub-chain reentrance. See the
> SOAPHandlerInterceptor example I posted previously.
>
> Cheers,
> Jervis
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cxf-dev/200611.mbox/%3cFA1787F64A095C4090E76EBAF8B183E071FADE@emea-ems1.dublin.emea.iona.com%3e
>
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
---------------------------------
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
Re: Proposal for chaning CXF Interceptor APIs. WAS: RE: When should we close the handlers in CXF?
Posted by Unreal Jiang <si...@yahoo.com>.
LogicalHandlerInterceptor already has a onCompletion() method to do some cleanup work. Maybe we can use it as the cleanup method name.
Unreal
Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote: Could I offer just once suggestion? Could we rename the postHandleMessage to
onFinish(Message) or onComplete(Message)?
- Dan
On 2/6/07, Unreal Jiang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Looks like there has no opponent for jervis' proposal, I will create a
> jira task for this proposal and sign it me.
>
> Cheers
> Unreal
>
> "Liu, Jervis" wrote:
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
> Sent: Tue 1/23/2007 1:02 AM
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal for chaning CXF Interceptor APIs. WAS: RE: When
> should we close the handlers in CXF?
>
>
>
> On 1/22/07, Liu, Jervis wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I would like to summarize what we have been discussed in this thread
> > (including Eoghan's proposal posted last Oct [1]) regarding Interceptor
> API
> > changes. Any comments would be appreciated.
> >
> > Currently our Interceptor APIs look like below:
> >
> > public interface Interceptor {
> > void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
> > void handleFault(T message);
> > }
> >
> > Also in the interceptor chain, we have a notion of sub-chain or
> > interceptor chain reentrance by calling message.getInterceptorChain
> ().doIntercept(message)
> > or message.getInterceptorChain().doInterceptInSubChain(message).
> >
> > The main issues we have with the current implementation are:
> >
> > 1. Fault handling. See Eoghag's email [1]
> >
> > 2. Sub-chain reentrance. See previous discussion in this thread.
> >
> > We propose to change Interceptor API as below:
> >
> > public interface Interceptor {
> > void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
> > void handleFault(T message);
> > void close(T message);
> > }
> >
> > handleFault(T message) method is used to process fault message (which is
> > done by handleMessage() in fault-chain currently).
>
>
> > I'm not sure I understand how you want to use this. I guess I could see
> two
> > ways
>
> > 1. Remove In/OutFault interceptors and call handleFault on the In/Out
> > interceptors. I don't know that mapping works especially well though.
> > 2. Don't call handleFault on in/out interceptors, but only on the
> > in/outFault interceptors - this would mean, for example, that the logic
> from
> > Soap11OutFaultInterceptor would be moved from the handleMessage to
> > handleFault.
>
> > Can you be more specific about what you mean?
>
>
> Sorry, after rethinking about this, I've changed my mind slightly, so here
> is the idea:
>
> CXF Interceptor API will be similiar to JAX-WS API, section 9.3.2.1.
>
> Throw ProtocolException or a subclass This indicates that normal message
> processing should cease.
> Subsequent actions depend on whether the MEP in use requires a response to
> the message currently
> being processed or not:
>
> Response: Normal message processing stops, fault message processing
> starts. The message direction
> is reversed, if the message is not already a fault message then it is
> replaced with a fault message4,
> and the runtime invokes handleFault on the next handler or dispatches the
> message (see
> section 9.1.2.2) if there are no further handlers.
>
> No response: Normal message processing stops, close is called on each
> previously invoked handler
> in the chain, the exception is dispatched (see section 9.1.2.3).
>
>
> Throw any other runtime exception This indicates that normal message
> processing should cease. Subse-
> quent actions depend on whether the MEP in use includes a response to the
> message currently being
> processed or not:
>
> Response: Normal message processing stops, close is called on each
> previously invoked handler in
> the chain, the message direction is reversed, and the exception is
> dispatched (see section 9.1.2.3).
>
>
> No response: Normal message processing stops, close is called on each
> previously invoked handler
> in the chain, the exception is dispatched (see section 9.1.2.3).
>
> However, the difference is CXF interceptors are not designed to hook in
> user logic as these JAX-WS handlers do, thus handleFault is not needed
> in CXF interceptors (correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is
> the purpose that JAX-WS handlers's handleFault method designed for. I.e, when
> a known exception - ProtocolException occurs, handleFault() gives handler
> developer a hook to clean up sth, for example, roll back a transaction,
> this is different from what close() is supposed to do. The latter is
> designed to clean things up under a succeeded situation). For any Runtime
> exceptions thrown by interceptors, we just wrap it as soap exception then
> dispatch it back calling handleMessage.
>
> So here is the change we need to make:
>
> 1. Add a postHandleMessage() into Interceptor interface
>
> 2. Remove handleFault() method from Interceptor interface. Or we can
> still keep it for a while until we are absolutely sure we wont need
> this method, but I presume there is nothing we need to do in this method.
>
> 3. We will NOT add a close() method into Interceptor interface, as
> CXF interceptors are stateless, there is no resources need to be closed.
>
> public interface Interceptor {
> void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
> void postHandleMessage(T message);
> }
>
> When an interceptor chain ends normally, we need to call
> postHandleMessage() on each previously traversed interceptor in a reversed
> direction.
>
> When a fault occurs on the in-bound chain, an exception will be thrown
> from the interceptor, after catching the exception in
> PhaseInterceptorChain, we unwind the current chain by calling
> postHandleMessage() on each previously traversed interceptor and then jump
> to the out-fault-chain, calling handleMessage() on each interceptor with
> the fault message.
>
> Any thoughs?
>
>
>
>
> > close(T message) method is called on a reverse direction at the end of
> > interceptor chain or when a fault or exception occurs. Take the fault
> > handling case as an example, below is how handleFault and close work
> > together
>
>
> > +1 to close() - Although I think Eoghan has a good point about the
> ordering
> > not necessarily being the same. I think we need to do a little bit more
> > digging before we can know whether or not sub chains can be removed.
>
> > when a fault occurs on the in-chain, we unwind the current chain by
> calling
> > close() on each previously traversed interceptor and then jump to the
> > out-fault-chain, calling handleFault() on each interceptor with the
> fault
> > message.
> >
> > Close method is also used to remove the sub-chain reentrance. See the
> > SOAPHandlerInterceptor example I posted previously.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jervis
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cxf-dev/200611.mbox/%3cFA1787F64A095C4090E76EBAF8B183E071FADE@emea-ems1.dublin.emea.iona.com%3e
> >
> >
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
Re: Proposal for chaning CXF Interceptor APIs. WAS: RE: When should
we close the handlers in CXF?
Posted by Polar Humenn <ph...@iona.com>.
I'm still trying to find out how this interceptor stuff works. So
forgive me if I seem naive. :-[
You say CXF interceptors are stateless. Are you saying that
"statelessness" is a requirement to be a CXF interceptor? Or are you
saying that the processing interceptors that are currently used in CXF
are stateless and that's all that need to be supported?
I can definitely see a use case for CXF interceptors maintaining state.
A simple one is an outbound message counter. The interceptor increments
a counter on handleMessage() assuming the message makes out the end (has
no way of knowing). So the interceptor must decrement its counter on
handleFault() because that tells the interceptor that the message never
made it out the end because of some interceptor downstream in the chain.
So, if I have this right, what you are proposing is to alter the
semantics, and only call this onFinish() method on the unwind chain when
the message makes finally makes it out the end of the chain.
This changes the semantics quite a bit. With the handleFault approach
one can assume that the message will be successful in negotiating the
chain *unless* it is told otherwise, (handleFault), which leads to
optimistic processing. The latter onFinish() approach requires me to
*wait* to see *if* the message was successful, which is a pessimistic,
possibly more expensive approach.
It seems to me, that "fault" processing is the exceptional case, and one
should be able to assume optimistic processing, unless told otherwise.
Thoughts?
The other thing I don't get, is what constitutes an Inbound Fault
Message as opposed to an Inbound Message? Why does this make a
difference in Interceptors of inbound and outbound messages?
Cheers,
-Polar
Dan Diephouse wrote:
> Could I offer just once suggestion? Could we rename the
> postHandleMessage to
> onFinish(Message) or onComplete(Message)?
>
> - Dan
>
> On 2/6/07, Unreal Jiang <si...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Looks like there has no opponent for jervis' proposal, I will
>> create a
>> jira task for this proposal and sign it me.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Unreal
>>
>> "Liu, Jervis" <jl...@iona.com> wrote:
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
>> Sent: Tue 1/23/2007 1:02 AM
>> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Proposal for chaning CXF Interceptor APIs. WAS: RE: When
>> should we close the handlers in CXF?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/22/07, Liu, Jervis wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi, I would like to summarize what we have been discussed in this
>> thread
>> > (including Eoghan's proposal posted last Oct [1]) regarding
>> Interceptor
>> API
>> > changes. Any comments would be appreciated.
>> >
>> > Currently our Interceptor APIs look like below:
>> >
>> > public interface Interceptor {
>> > void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
>> > void handleFault(T message);
>> > }
>> >
>> > Also in the interceptor chain, we have a notion of sub-chain or
>> > interceptor chain reentrance by calling message.getInterceptorChain
>> ().doIntercept(message)
>> > or message.getInterceptorChain().doInterceptInSubChain(message).
>> >
>> > The main issues we have with the current implementation are:
>> >
>> > 1. Fault handling. See Eoghag's email [1]
>> >
>> > 2. Sub-chain reentrance. See previous discussion in this thread.
>> >
>> > We propose to change Interceptor API as below:
>> >
>> > public interface Interceptor {
>> > void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
>> > void handleFault(T message);
>> > void close(T message);
>> > }
>> >
>> > handleFault(T message) method is used to process fault message
>> (which is
>> > done by handleMessage() in fault-chain currently).
>>
>>
>> > I'm not sure I understand how you want to use this. I guess I could
>> see
>> two
>> > ways
>>
>> > 1. Remove In/OutFault interceptors and call handleFault on the In/Out
>> > interceptors. I don't know that mapping works especially well though.
>> > 2. Don't call handleFault on in/out interceptors, but only on the
>> > in/outFault interceptors - this would mean, for example, that the
>> logic
>> from
>> > Soap11OutFaultInterceptor would be moved from the handleMessage to
>> > handleFault.
>>
>> > Can you be more specific about what you mean?
>>
>>
>> Sorry, after rethinking about this, I've changed my mind slightly, so
>> here
>> is the idea:
>>
>> CXF Interceptor API will be similiar to JAX-WS API, section 9.3.2.1.
>>
>> Throw ProtocolException or a subclass This indicates that normal message
>> processing should cease.
>> Subsequent actions depend on whether the MEP in use requires a
>> response to
>> the message currently
>> being processed or not:
>>
>> Response: Normal message processing stops, fault message processing
>> starts. The message direction
>> is reversed, if the message is not already a fault message then it is
>> replaced with a fault message4,
>> and the runtime invokes handleFault on the next handler or dispatches
>> the
>> message (see
>> section 9.1.2.2) if there are no further handlers.
>>
>> No response: Normal message processing stops, close is called on each
>> previously invoked handler
>> in the chain, the exception is dispatched (see section 9.1.2.3).
>>
>>
>> Throw any other runtime exception This indicates that normal message
>> processing should cease. Subse-
>> quent actions depend on whether the MEP in use includes a response to
>> the
>> message currently being
>> processed or not:
>>
>> Response: Normal message processing stops, close is called on each
>> previously invoked handler in
>> the chain, the message direction is reversed, and the exception is
>> dispatched (see section 9.1.2.3).
>>
>>
>> No response: Normal message processing stops, close is called on each
>> previously invoked handler
>> in the chain, the exception is dispatched (see section 9.1.2.3).
>>
>> However, the difference is CXF interceptors are not designed to hook in
>> user logic as these JAX-WS handlers do, thus handleFault is not needed
>> in CXF interceptors (correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is
>> the purpose that JAX-WS handlers's handleFault method designed for.
>> I.e, when
>> a known exception - ProtocolException occurs, handleFault() gives
>> handler
>> developer a hook to clean up sth, for example, roll back a transaction,
>> this is different from what close() is supposed to do. The latter is
>> designed to clean things up under a succeeded situation). For any
>> Runtime
>> exceptions thrown by interceptors, we just wrap it as soap exception
>> then
>> dispatch it back calling handleMessage.
>>
>> So here is the change we need to make:
>>
>> 1. Add a postHandleMessage() into Interceptor interface
>>
>> 2. Remove handleFault() method from Interceptor interface. Or we can
>> still keep it for a while until we are absolutely sure we wont need
>> this method, but I presume there is nothing we need to do in this
>> method.
>>
>> 3. We will NOT add a close() method into Interceptor interface, as
>> CXF interceptors are stateless, there is no resources need to be
>> closed.
>>
>> public interface Interceptor {
>> void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
>> void postHandleMessage(T message);
>> }
>>
>> When an interceptor chain ends normally, we need to call
>> postHandleMessage() on each previously traversed interceptor in a
>> reversed
>> direction.
>>
>> When a fault occurs on the in-bound chain, an exception will be thrown
>> from the interceptor, after catching the exception in
>> PhaseInterceptorChain, we unwind the current chain by calling
>> postHandleMessage() on each previously traversed interceptor and
>> then jump
>> to the out-fault-chain, calling handleMessage() on each interceptor
>> with
>> the fault message.
>>
>> Any thoughs?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > close(T message) method is called on a reverse direction at the end of
>> > interceptor chain or when a fault or exception occurs. Take the fault
>> > handling case as an example, below is how handleFault and close work
>> > together
>>
>>
>> > +1 to close() - Although I think Eoghan has a good point about the
>> ordering
>> > not necessarily being the same. I think we need to do a little bit
>> more
>> > digging before we can know whether or not sub chains can be removed.
>>
>> > when a fault occurs on the in-chain, we unwind the current chain by
>> calling
>> > close() on each previously traversed interceptor and then jump to the
>> > out-fault-chain, calling handleFault() on each interceptor with the
>> fault
>> > message.
>> >
>> > Close method is also used to remove the sub-chain reentrance. See the
>> > SOAPHandlerInterceptor example I posted previously.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Jervis
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cxf-dev/200611.mbox/%3cFA1787F64A095C4090E76EBAF8B183E071FADE@emea-ems1.dublin.emea.iona.com%3e
>>
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> Dan Diephouse
>> Envoi Solutions
>> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
>
>
>
>
Re: Proposal for chaning CXF Interceptor APIs. WAS: RE: When should we close the handlers in CXF?
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
Could I offer just once suggestion? Could we rename the postHandleMessage to
onFinish(Message) or onComplete(Message)?
- Dan
On 2/6/07, Unreal Jiang <si...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Looks like there has no opponent for jervis' proposal, I will create a
> jira task for this proposal and sign it me.
>
> Cheers
> Unreal
>
> "Liu, Jervis" <jl...@iona.com> wrote:
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
> Sent: Tue 1/23/2007 1:02 AM
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal for chaning CXF Interceptor APIs. WAS: RE: When
> should we close the handlers in CXF?
>
>
>
> On 1/22/07, Liu, Jervis wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I would like to summarize what we have been discussed in this thread
> > (including Eoghan's proposal posted last Oct [1]) regarding Interceptor
> API
> > changes. Any comments would be appreciated.
> >
> > Currently our Interceptor APIs look like below:
> >
> > public interface Interceptor {
> > void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
> > void handleFault(T message);
> > }
> >
> > Also in the interceptor chain, we have a notion of sub-chain or
> > interceptor chain reentrance by calling message.getInterceptorChain
> ().doIntercept(message)
> > or message.getInterceptorChain().doInterceptInSubChain(message).
> >
> > The main issues we have with the current implementation are:
> >
> > 1. Fault handling. See Eoghag's email [1]
> >
> > 2. Sub-chain reentrance. See previous discussion in this thread.
> >
> > We propose to change Interceptor API as below:
> >
> > public interface Interceptor {
> > void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
> > void handleFault(T message);
> > void close(T message);
> > }
> >
> > handleFault(T message) method is used to process fault message (which is
> > done by handleMessage() in fault-chain currently).
>
>
> > I'm not sure I understand how you want to use this. I guess I could see
> two
> > ways
>
> > 1. Remove In/OutFault interceptors and call handleFault on the In/Out
> > interceptors. I don't know that mapping works especially well though.
> > 2. Don't call handleFault on in/out interceptors, but only on the
> > in/outFault interceptors - this would mean, for example, that the logic
> from
> > Soap11OutFaultInterceptor would be moved from the handleMessage to
> > handleFault.
>
> > Can you be more specific about what you mean?
>
>
> Sorry, after rethinking about this, I've changed my mind slightly, so here
> is the idea:
>
> CXF Interceptor API will be similiar to JAX-WS API, section 9.3.2.1.
>
> Throw ProtocolException or a subclass This indicates that normal message
> processing should cease.
> Subsequent actions depend on whether the MEP in use requires a response to
> the message currently
> being processed or not:
>
> Response: Normal message processing stops, fault message processing
> starts. The message direction
> is reversed, if the message is not already a fault message then it is
> replaced with a fault message4,
> and the runtime invokes handleFault on the next handler or dispatches the
> message (see
> section 9.1.2.2) if there are no further handlers.
>
> No response: Normal message processing stops, close is called on each
> previously invoked handler
> in the chain, the exception is dispatched (see section 9.1.2.3).
>
>
> Throw any other runtime exception This indicates that normal message
> processing should cease. Subse-
> quent actions depend on whether the MEP in use includes a response to the
> message currently being
> processed or not:
>
> Response: Normal message processing stops, close is called on each
> previously invoked handler in
> the chain, the message direction is reversed, and the exception is
> dispatched (see section 9.1.2.3).
>
>
> No response: Normal message processing stops, close is called on each
> previously invoked handler
> in the chain, the exception is dispatched (see section 9.1.2.3).
>
> However, the difference is CXF interceptors are not designed to hook in
> user logic as these JAX-WS handlers do, thus handleFault is not needed
> in CXF interceptors (correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is
> the purpose that JAX-WS handlers's handleFault method designed for. I.e, when
> a known exception - ProtocolException occurs, handleFault() gives handler
> developer a hook to clean up sth, for example, roll back a transaction,
> this is different from what close() is supposed to do. The latter is
> designed to clean things up under a succeeded situation). For any Runtime
> exceptions thrown by interceptors, we just wrap it as soap exception then
> dispatch it back calling handleMessage.
>
> So here is the change we need to make:
>
> 1. Add a postHandleMessage() into Interceptor interface
>
> 2. Remove handleFault() method from Interceptor interface. Or we can
> still keep it for a while until we are absolutely sure we wont need
> this method, but I presume there is nothing we need to do in this method.
>
> 3. We will NOT add a close() method into Interceptor interface, as
> CXF interceptors are stateless, there is no resources need to be closed.
>
> public interface Interceptor {
> void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
> void postHandleMessage(T message);
> }
>
> When an interceptor chain ends normally, we need to call
> postHandleMessage() on each previously traversed interceptor in a reversed
> direction.
>
> When a fault occurs on the in-bound chain, an exception will be thrown
> from the interceptor, after catching the exception in
> PhaseInterceptorChain, we unwind the current chain by calling
> postHandleMessage() on each previously traversed interceptor and then jump
> to the out-fault-chain, calling handleMessage() on each interceptor with
> the fault message.
>
> Any thoughs?
>
>
>
>
> > close(T message) method is called on a reverse direction at the end of
> > interceptor chain or when a fault or exception occurs. Take the fault
> > handling case as an example, below is how handleFault and close work
> > together
>
>
> > +1 to close() - Although I think Eoghan has a good point about the
> ordering
> > not necessarily being the same. I think we need to do a little bit more
> > digging before we can know whether or not sub chains can be removed.
>
> > when a fault occurs on the in-chain, we unwind the current chain by
> calling
> > close() on each previously traversed interceptor and then jump to the
> > out-fault-chain, calling handleFault() on each interceptor with the
> fault
> > message.
> >
> > Close method is also used to remove the sub-chain reentrance. See the
> > SOAPHandlerInterceptor example I posted previously.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jervis
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cxf-dev/200611.mbox/%3cFA1787F64A095C4090E76EBAF8B183E071FADE@emea-ems1.dublin.emea.iona.com%3e
> >
> >
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog