Hi,
Did we have any previous discussions on why we wont want a JAX-WS like APIs for
interceptor chain? I.e., an Interceptor interface should look like below:
public interface Interceptor<T extends Message> {
void handleMessage(T message) throws Fault;
void handleFault(T message);
void close(T message);
}
I see the possibility of removing subchains(interceptor chain re-entrance) from
the interceptor chain by using close method. I am not saying sub-chain and the
reentrance is that bad, but it does bring some confusion to understand the
interceptor flow and it also brings unnecessary complexity such as handling
exceptions thrown from a subchain and how to return back from subchain. Take
the SOAPHandlerInterceptor as example, it looks like below now with a close
method:
private OutputStream oldStream;
......
public void handleMessage(SoapMessage message) {
if (getInvoker(message).getProtocolHandlers().isEmpty()) {
return;
}
if (getInvoker(message).isOutbound()) {
oldStream = message.getContent(OutputStream.class);
CachedStream cs = new CachedStream();
message.setContent(OutputStream.class, cs);
} else {
.....
}
}
public void close(SoapMessage message) {
if (getInvoker(message).isOutbound()) {
super.handleMessage(message);
try {
CachedStream cs =
(CachedStream)message.getContent(OutputStream.class);
// Stream SOAPMessage back to output stream if necessary
SOAPMessage soapMessage = message.getContent(SOAPMessage.class);
if (soapMessage != null) {
soapMessage.writeTo(oldStream);
} else {
cs.flush();
AbstractCachedOutputStream csnew =
(AbstractCachedOutputStream) message
.getContent(OutputStream.class);
AbstractCachedOutputStream.copyStream(csnew
.getInputStream(), oldStream, 64 * 1024);
cs.close();
}
oldStream.flush();
message.setContent(OutputStream.class, oldStream);
} catch (IOException ioe) {
throw new SoapFault(new org.apache.cxf.common.i18n.Message(
"SOAPHANDLERINTERCEPTOR_EXCEPTION", BUNDLE), ioe,
message.getVersion().getSender());
} catch (SOAPException soape) {
throw new SoapFault(new org.apache.cxf.common.i18n.Message(
"SOAPHANDLERINTERCEPTOR_EXCEPTION", BUNDLE), soape,
message.getVersion().getSender());
}
}
}
We can do the same thing for MessageSenderInterceptor, StaxOutInteceptor and
SoapOutInterceptor etc.
Does this look good to everyone, any thoughts?
Cheers,
Jervis
________________________________
From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 9:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: When should we close the handlers in CXF?
I think the registering of actions to be run at the end of the chain is
good.
Another possibility is to add a close(Message) method to the Interceptor
which gets called at the end of the chain. If we did that I would think we
might want to get rid of the handleFault method as cleanup could be done in
close(). (Eoghan - I'm actually suggesting we move closer to the JAX-WS
APIs! ;-))
Thoughts?
- Dan
On 1/18/07, Glynn, Eoghan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Unreal Jiang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 18 January 2007 11:44
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: When should we close the handlers in CXF?
> >
> > Hi Eoghan,
> > I think those two approach are work fine.
> >
> > The first approach is only for handlers process,
> > The second approach can do some clean-up works not only for
> > handlers but interceptors, but if we use runnable object
> > for TerminalAction, the order of handlers or interceptors
> > will be hard to ensure.
>
> In most cases, a FIFO ordering of the terminal actions would be fine,
> i.e. the order in which the terminal actions are executed would reflect
> the order in which the interceptors were traversed. If you needed more
> fine-grained control, maybe InterceptorChain.addTerminalAction() could
> be replaced by something like ...
>
> interface InterceptorChain {
> List<Runnbale> getTerminalActions();
> }
>
> ... so that the code submitting the terminal action could control
> ordering with respect to previously submitted terminal actions. Going
> even further that this (e.g. something akin to the
> PhaseInterceptor.getBefore/After() business) would I think be overkill
> without a specific ordering-sensitive usecase.
>
> However, a closer look at the JAX-WS HandlerChainInvoker code suggests
> that only one of the LogicalHandlerInterceptor and
> SOAPHandlerInterceptor will actually need to submit a terminal action.
> So with only a *single* terminal action concerned with closing handlers,
> ordering shouldn't be an issue here.
>
> This is because the same HandlerChainInvoker instance is shared by these
> two interceptors, and the code that calls handleMessage/Fault() on the
> individual Handlers also adds each of these to a separate list
> (closeHandlers) of handlers for which close() should be called.
>
> Only a single call to HandlerChainInvoker.mepComplete() is then actually
> required to ensure that *all* the traversed handlers are close()d in the
> correct order.
>
> So maybe the simplest approach would be be to submit the terminal action
> in AbstractJAXWSHandlerInterceptor.getInvoker(), i.e.:
>
> protected HandlerChainInvoker getInvoker(final T message) {
> HandlerChainInvoker invoker =
> message.getExchange().get(HandlerChainInvoker.class);
> if (null == invoker) {
> invoker = new HandlerChainInvoker(binding.getHandlerChain(),
> isOutbound(message));
> message.getExchange().put(HandlerChainInvoker.class,
> invoker);
>
> // submit a *single* terminal action for entire handler
> chain
> message.getInterceptorChain().addTerminalAction(new
> Runnable() {
> public void run() {
> mepComplete(message);
> }
> }
> }
> //...
> }
>
> Cheers,
> Eoghan
>
> > So I incline to the second approach, but we should use
> > some other way to instead of runnable object.
> >
> > Regards
> > Unreal
> >
> > "Liu, Jervis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I would vote for the
> > second approach. When its there, we can probably use the
> > similiar approach to remove the sub-chain (interceptor chain
> > reentrance) wherever it is possible.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Glynn, Eoghan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wed 1/17/2007 9:42 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: When should we close the handlers in CXF?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Glynn, Eoghan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 17 January 2007 12:34
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: RE: When should we close the handlers in CXF?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Unreal,
> > >
> > > One point to note is that all the other JAX-WS Handler touch points
> > > are driven through a set of interceptors, each wrapping a
> > chain of a
> > > particular Handler type (logical, protocol etc.).
> > >
> > > So for example the SOAPHanderInterceptor takes care of calling the
> > > handleMessage/Fault() methods of any SOAPHandlers in the chain.
> > > Similarly there's a *separate* LogicalHandlerInterceptor that
> > > traverses the chain of LogicalHandlers. I'm guessing you
> > already know
> > > all this ...
> > >
> > > But the point is that it would be a good idea to maintain
> > the pattern
> > > of wrapper-interceptor calling out to JAX-WS Handler, and
> > obviously it
> > > would be badness to for example put this JAXWS-specific
> > logic into the
> > > ClientImpl code.
> > >
> > > However, because Handler.close() should only be called at the very
> > > *end* of the interceptor chain tarversal, and because we currently
> > > have
> > > *multiple* interceptors wrapping the JAX-WS Handler chains
> > of various
> > > types, the close() call should not be made from within the existing
> > > wrapper interceptors. Otherwise we'd end up with for
> > example close()
> > > called prematurely on the SOAPHandlers *before* the LogicalHandlers
> > > have even been traversed (inbound on the client-side).
> > >
> > > So we'd need a *single* new wrapper interceptor, positioned
> > at the end
> > > of the in & fault-in interceptor chains, that's responsible for
> > > calling
> > > close() on all types of handler. This could be driven via a pattern
> > > similar to the
> > > LogicalHandlerInterceptor.onCompletion() method (e.g. the new
> > > interceptor walks back along the chain to find the
> > > LogicalHandlerInterceptor & SOAPHandlerInterceptor and calls
> > > onCompletion() on these).
> >
> > On second thoughts, maybe a cleaner may of doing this would
> > be allow an interceptor to register some sort of terminal
> > action with the InterceptorChain to be executed when the
> > chain traversal is complete, e.g.
> >
> > public interface InterceptorChain {
> > void addTerminalAction(Runnable r);
> >
> > //...
> > }
> >
> > Or alternatively take the Runnable as a return value from
> > Interceptor.handleMessage/Fault().
> >
> > Then in the InterceptorChain impl, run all the
> > TerminalAction(s) from a finally block, e.g.
> >
> > public class PhaseInterceptorChain {
> > public boolean doIntercept(Message m) {
> > try {
> > while (interceptorIterator.hasNext()) {
> > interceptorIterator.next().handleMessage(m);
> > }
> > } finally {
> > for (Runnable r : terminalActions) {
> > r.run();
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Then for example the
> > LogicalHandlerInterceptor.handleMessage() would end with some
> > logic like:
> >
> > if (isRequestor(message) && (isOneway(message) ||
> > !isOutbound(message))) {
> > message.getInterceptorChain().addTerminalAction(new Runnable() {
> > public void run() {
> > getInvoker(message).mepComplete(message);
> > }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Similarly for SOAPHandlerInterceptor etc.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Eoghan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
> >
>
--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com <https://bosgate2.iona.com/http/0/envoisolutions.com>
| http://netzooid.com/blog
<https://bosgate2.iona.com/http/0/netzooid.com/blog>
