OK, I'm guess that we're talking about different things then? So I'm not
sure I understand your question any more. I was saying that rather depending
on this code:
private boolean isPartialResponse(Message in) {
return in.getContent(List.class) == null
&& getException(in.getExchange()) == null;
}
we should explicitly set a property REDISPATCHED. So the code in
ClientImpl.onMessage becomes:
if (!Boolean.TRUE.equals(message.get(REDISPATCHED)) {
message.getExchange().put(FINISHED, Boolean.TRUE);
message.getExchange().setInMessage(message);
message.getExchange().notifyAll();
}
And that gets around the problem of having to look for List content. All
that needs to be done is setting of the REDISPATCHED property when we know
we have a message destined for the RM service (i.e. a CreateSequence).
That would work with non-anonymous replyTo's just fine. Whatever component
redirects the message is responsible for setting the redispatched parameter.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you're talking about though?
- Dan
On 1/8/07, Andrea Smyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Diephouse wrote:
> On 1/8/07, Andrea Smyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>
>> > I think that anything before unmarshalling should be pretty resilient
>> > to any
>> > type of message. But unmarshalling may be specific from service to
>> > service.
>> > So I'm cool with starting a new chain which starts after the
>> > RmSoapInterceptor.
>> >
>> > Regarding the partial response check - I thought we decided we were
>> > going to
>> > set a property which signals that the message isn't destined for the
>> > client.
>> > This way we have a general mechanism for other WS-* specs as well.
for
>> > example:
>> >
>> > // determine whether the message was redispatched to RM or somewhere
>> else
>> > boolean redispatched = Boolean.TRUE.equals(message.get
(REDISPATCHED));
>> >
>> > Other possible property names might be REROUTED, INTERCEPTED, or
>> > FORWARDED.
>>
>> Well that's not the case for now - and I am not sure where exactly this
>> property should be set. It may require changes to several interceptors
>> to make them aware of the possibly empty soap bodies and in such a case
>> identify the message as a partial response.
>
>
>
> Wouldn't it just be set in the RMSoapInterceptor?
>
> if (wsaAction.equals(createSequence)) message.put(REDISPATCHED,
> Boolean.TRUE
> ));
No, this has nothing to do with RM - it would be a problem whenever we
use addressing with a non-anonymous ReplyTo. Granted, RM is the only
component tyhat actually has an interest in partial responses, but we'd
have to send them anyway as we'd need some form of http response.
>
> In general I'd prefer if we could make it a policy for interceptors to
>
>> simply do NOTHING rather than deciding to take some default action (in
>> the case of the BareInInterceptor: set the content of the in message to
>> an empty list) when they do encounter 'abnormal' messages.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand. How are we supposed to know if there is an
> error
> then?
>
> - Dan
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
