Rossen, I agree with your interpretation and that is how I originally implemented it. However there are authoritative test suites that take a different view..... but I'm inclined to ignore those test suites when they have such nonsensical results, so I should have stuck with my original impl and will now revert to the previous behaviour.
cheers On 13 August 2013 01:37, Rossen Stoyanchev <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Thanks for commenting. Isn't the spec relatively clear? In other words > that the dispatch should have no effect until the exiting thread has > returned. > > I was very glad to find the qualification in the spec when I first > came across the need for it since code in the exiting thread needs to > be able to check reliably if async has started. If we can't rely on > isAsyncStarted, and for example had to implement a request attribute > solution, we'd have to also remove the attribute at some point, so > that the subsequently dispatched thread doesn't think that async has > started. There is no good place I can think of for doing that. It has > to be as late as possible in the exiting thread, i.e. after all > filters, and as early as possible in the subsequently dispatched > thread, i.e. before all filters. Also, such a request attribute would > be framework specific and would not mix well with filters from other > frameworks. This is where I see the purpose of this flag as essential. > > Rossen > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Greg Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rossen, David, > > > > I recently changed the behaviour of isAsyncStarted() under protest > because > > it was pointed out to me that we were not following the spec. I feared > that > > it would lead to exactly the kind of problem that you are having here. > > > > Currently I'm thinking that I will revert the default behaviour so that > > isAsyncStarted will return true until the original dispatch is completed, > > but add a configuration option to switch on strict adherence to the spec > > (but I cannot think why anybody would want that). > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > On 13 August 2013 01:03, Rossen Stoyanchev <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Simone, > >> > >> Sure, no worries. Actually David already opened a ticket for this issue: > >> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=413901 > >> > >> Maybe the title can be updated now that we have more information. Will > >> that work? > >> > >> Rossen > >> _______________________________________________ > >> jetty-users mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Greg Wilkins <[email protected]> > > http://www.webtide.com > > Developer advice and support from the Jetty & CometD experts. > > Intalio, the modern way to build business applications. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > jetty-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users > > > _______________________________________________ > jetty-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users > -- Greg Wilkins <[email protected]> http://www.webtide.com Developer advice and support from the Jetty & CometD experts. Intalio, the modern way to build business applications.
_______________________________________________ jetty-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users
