I would agree with making them consistent (deferring to your judgment of the actual ordering), but one concern I would have would be about backward compatibility--i.e., the interceptors no longer being activated in the order the users are expecting as a result of this switch. Of course, getting the system running right is more important, but just an issue to think about.
Glen 2008-06-06 Daniel Kulp 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 > > > >
