On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure. The Inteceptor is called on the "setNext()" method to receive the next > interceptor in the chain. But the interceptor has freedom to decide if it > should delegates to the next one. > > For example, in the invoke(Message msg) implementation: > > // do something > return getNext().invoke(msg); > > or > // do something > return myMsg; >
Although the interceptors have this flexibility, I'd like to better understand Douglas's motivations on this scenario. BTW, if the interceptor kind just ignore the invocation chain somewhat unconditionally, can't this lead to unexpected runtime behaviors ? AFAIK, most of our policy interceptors either perform some additional transformations before reaching the implementation invoker, or shields the invocation from reaching the implementation invoker when things are not satisfied (e.g no authorization headers, no authorization, etc), which is what I'd expect of policy interceptors. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
