Well, IMO the idea of the infault flow is as high level as the inflow
.. I belive the wsdl makes it so. One can have a dispatcher to do the
check for a fault .. (he should not/ can not do the service disptah if
it is a fault. ) Then it is we calling the infualt flow with in the
in-flow.
But we are running in to this chicken and egg problem too often
.somehting is encrypted ...ect ..ect ... may be the pre diapatch
pahses are common to all in* flows ..and we should redefine them so.
Just thinking aloud .. what you guys think?
On 8/17/05, Ajith Ranabahu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ahum..
> In my personal opinion I see the invokeFault(..) [or whatever it will be
> called] as an elegant way of handling the error.So I don't think it's
> complicating things. it's actually a better way of dealing with the
> complication :)
> The very reason why we need a fault flow is to avoid such fall through code
> in the handlers :)
>
>
> On 8/17/05, Eran Chinthaka < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, can I know the things you are thinking of doing in the IN fault
> > flow, which you don't wanna do in the normal in flow (of course
> > something other than logging :) )
> >
> >
> > > Hi dims;
> > >
> > > Lets say that we have the fault information in the soap header
> (addressing)
> > > . In the current implementation what it does is when a message is
> received ,
> > > takes the inflow (inflow handles ) and give it to the engine and call
> > > engine.receive(msgContx) ,
> > > addressing handler is in that chain , so we do need to go throgh the
> inflow
> > > upto addressing handler to read the addressing headers to know the fault
> ,
> > > and then we can call engine.receiveFault();
> > >
> > > so we have to start the in-fault-flow invocation in the middle of
> in-flow;
> > > is that ok?
> >
> > Isn't this complicating the things ???
> > Without doing the way you propose, you can achieve the samething like
> this.
> >
> > 1. Handler which handlers everything
> >
> > invoke (msgctx){
> > if( env.getBody().hasFault()){
> > // do your fault stuff
> > }else{
> > // do normal stuff
> > }
> > }
> >
> > 2. Fault Handler (any use cases ??)
> >
> > invoke (msgctx){
> > if(env.getBody().hasFault()){
> > // do your fault stuff
> > }
> > }
> >
> > 3. No Difference on faults handler
> >
> > invoke (msgctx){
> > // act on msgctx. No difference
> > }
> >
> >
> > See my point ??
> >
> > -- Chinthaka
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ajith Ranabahu
