Samisa, think of this situation, we need to add a rampart handler for encrypting a response back to the client and we don't want to do any encryption if there is a fault. currently if we just add a handler in the out flow, we are all set. otherwise, we need to add additional logic in the handler for detecting faults. Also say, there is a logging handler needs to be added for faults ONLY, we don't want that handler to be called under normal conditions as we don't want the over head of checking if the current flow is fault or normal. that was the reason we added it, (if i renenver right). of course there's nothing wrong in writing only one set of handlers for doing everything...i guess.
-- dims On 5/28/07, Samisa Abeysinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eran Chinthaka wrote: > 6. About faults, yes I also agree with you for some extent. When Deepal > initially put that we had some discussions on that. > "Why there is a separate flow to handle the Faults?" With my understanding, the handers to be invoked when there is a fault, could be different form the handlers that could be invoked when there is no fault. (Going by the definition, a flow is a collection of phases and a phase is a collection of handlers). Now it is questionable if it is really necessary to have different handlers for fault path or the same set of handlers could deal with both fault cases and non fault cases. Samisa... -- Samisa Abeysinghe : http://www.bloglines.com/blog/samisa --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
