View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820649#3820649
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820649 I also do not see why the Invocation should be directing any of the interceptor usage, which is really a dispatch semantic. The use of the Invocation.invokeNext(...) is optional since the initiation point for the invocation can be the Dispatcher. Two different dispatch mechanisms have been advocated. - Start with the first interceptor and pass the invocation down the chain until the last interceptor, which has the responsibility of dispatching the invocation to the target. This is what we do currently with either an explicit last dispatch interceptor or a non-interceptor dispatcher. - Treat each interceptor as a worker that simply modifies the state of the invocation and has no explicit call stack semantic. There could be seperate interceptor assemblies for the invocation dispatch and result. The current call dispatch notion may appear simple and well defined, but it breaks down when you start talking about asynch requests, requests traversing thread pools, routing of requests based on quality of service choices, etc. ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ JBoss-Development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
