On Jun 6, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
I'm with ya on the need for consistency here. I honestly have no
idea which
one will perform best, but I think either options is reasonable.
The other option is to make in and out symetrical. Example:
Server in: bus, service, endpoint, binding
Server out: binding, endpoint, service, bus
That said, I don't really like it as I think it overly complicates
things and is then more to document. I think I'll try the two I
listed below and see which performs the best and go with it.
I'll throw one more thing out - we could possibly make Server an
InterceptorProvider if we wanted a mirror to the Client
InterceptorProvider.
I'm not sure if that gives us any needed functionality, but it might
make it
possible to remove the need for Service to be an InterceptorProvider.
Hmm... good point about adding to Server. I'll have to think about
that a bit more and double check that we even have the Server in all
three cases. (example: right now on the client side, we don't have
the client when setting up the fault chain. I need to address that.)
Dan
Dan
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm trying to dig into CXF-1547 to try and get the "proper" fix in
place.
Basically, I'm trying to make sure all the InterceptorProviders are
properly examined and in a consistent order. We basically have 5
interceptor providers:
Endpoint
Binding
Service
Bus
Client (client side only)
On the server side, they are evaluated in this order:
In: bus, endpoint, binding, service
Out: endpoint, service, bus, binding
Fault: endpoint, binding, service, bus
On the client side:
In: bus, endpoint, client, binding
Out: bus, endpoint, client, binding
Fault: endpoint, binding, service, bus
Things to note:
Client side doesn't look at the Service at all except for faults. We
definitely need to fix that.
Server side uses different ordering for all three chains.
I'd like to make this completely consistent. I want to make it:
Server: bus, binding, endpoint, service
Client: bus, binding, endpoint, service, client
Or:
Server: bus, service, endpoint, binding
Client: bus, client, service, endpoint, binding
Any opinions or objections? Looking through things, I'm leaning
toward
the second option. It LOOKS like the binding seems to define the
most
"addAfter" interceptors which cause more work when building the
InterceptorChain if they are already in the chain. Thus, putting
them at
the end may perform the best. I may run some checks to make sure
though.
In anycase, any thoughts?
---
Daniel Kulp
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
--
Dan Diephouse
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
---
Daniel Kulp
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
