On Wed June 17 2009 4:33:05 pm Daniel Kulp wrote:
> This looks to be a bug.   Not sure yet if it's in Jetty or in the CXF
> wrapper. Still kind of digging.

Just found http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JETTY-536

Thus, "isNew()" behavior isn't quite what we expected.   Thus, there 
definitely are some bugs in CXF here.  

Dan



> Dan
>
> On Wed June 17 2009 7:59:30 am Hannes Schubert wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > with several examples I observed that a jetty continuation is bound to
> > the client thread, which initiated its instantiation, e.g:
> >
> > 1. client thread invokes serviceMethod() first time
> >
> > 2. service impl gets a new continuation instance with state
> > new=true,pending=false,resumed=false
> > ...something might happen inbetween, the reason why continuations are
> > used...
> >
> > 3. anyhow the continuation's resume() method is called, and thereby the
> > service impl is invoked a second time with same continuation instance and
> > state new=false,pending=true,resumed=true
> >
> > 4. client thread get's the result
> >
> > 5. same client thread submits a second call to the same serviceMethod()
> >
> > 6. service impl gets the same continuation instance with state
> > new=false,pending=false,resumed=false a second time
> >
> > I tried to handle this state same as if it would be new. Interesting
> > thing is that second suspending succeeds, but after second resume a
> > com.ctc.wstx.exc.WstxEOFException: "Unexpected EOF in prolog" is thrown.
> > However, this does not happen, if step 5 is executed by another thread
> > (see
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/systests/src/test/java/org/apac
> >he /cxf/systest/http_jetty/continuations/). In this case the service impl
> > gets a new continuation and all is happy...
> >
> > So my questions are: what is the idea beyond it? After succeeded service
> > submission the client should be forgotten by the server. Why does server
> > keep that continuation? Is it a Jetty issue? Or did I forgot something?
> >
> > Any hints are appreciated!
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Hannes

-- 
Daniel Kulp
[email protected]
http://www.dankulp.com/blog

Reply via email to