I will take care of that while finishing up CXF 6118. regards On 28/11/2014 12:37 AM, "Aki Yoshida" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I didn't know there are so many isRequest methods hiding in the code ;-) > > I knew only MessageUtils's one, which was probably added later after some > time. > > The inconsistency that you observed between > AbstractInDatabindingIntereceptor and > AbstractOutDatabindingIntereceptor was the result of this patch > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=477226 > which only fixed this method in AbstractInDatabindingIntereceptor. > > In any case, I think we should remove these other methods from the > master version. For the released tracks, we probably need to keep them > as @deprecated with delegating to MessageUtils impl. > > > 2014-11-27 12:49 GMT+01:00 Jason Pell <[email protected]>: > > Oh and then we have another method in the AbstractPhaseInterceptor which > > calls > > > > protected boolean isRequestor(T message) { > > return MessageUtils.isRequestor(message); > > } > > > > Would it be possible to remove the isRequestor methods from > > AbstractOutDatabindingInterceptor and AbstractInDatabindingInterceptor > > > > Anyone know of any reason why that would be problematic? > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Jason Pell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi All > >> > >> Was wondering if anyone knows why in AbstractOutDatabindingInterceptor, > >> isRequestorRole has a definition of: > >> > >> protected boolean isRequestor(Message message) { > >> return > >> Boolean.TRUE.equals(message.containsKey(Message.REQUESTOR_ROLE)); > >> } > >> > >> Whereas in AbstractInDatabindingInterceptor its: > >> > >> protected boolean isRequestor(Message message) { > >> return Boolean.TRUE.equals(message.get(Message.REQUESTOR_ROLE)); > >> } > >> > >> > >> The first is just returning true if the Message.REQUESTOR_ROLE exists, > >> whereas for the second the Message.REQUESTOR_ROLE must be equal to TRUE. > >> > >> Seems very strange to have this difference. Dones anyone know the > history > >> of this? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >
