On Monday, August 29, 2011 12:10:08 PM Raj Floyd wrote: > And therefore it is appropriate to say that Features alwayz use > Interceptors. A kind of an abstraction over interceptors.
Well, it doesn't HAVE to use interceptors at all. It could do other things like configure properties instead. For example, an "MTOM" feature could just set the "mtom-enabled" property on the endpoint. Basically, the Features provide a simple way to perform or configure a series or related tasks or activities. That can include things like adding a bunch of interceptors to the chain, configuring properties, setting up resources, etc... In general, if a unit of usable functionality requires more than a few steps by the user to really configure and activate, creating a feature to encapsulate that is generally a good idea. Dan > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Willem Jiang <[email protected]>wrote: > > It will be hard if you has a bunch of interceptors to configure. > > CXF Feature gives you a way to configure the interceptors into Server, > > Client or Bus easily. > > > > If you just has one Interceptor need to be use, you don't need to use > > the > > feature :) > > > > On 8/28/11 6:54 PM, Raj Floyd wrote: > >> Hi, > >> Are Features an abstraction over Interceptors? Like the doc gives an > >> example > >> of LoggingFeature that in turn uses interceptors to implement logging. > >> So when should I use a Feature and Interceptor? > >> Thanks. > >> Raj > > > > -- > > Willem > > ------------------------------**---- > > FuseSource > > Web: http://www.fusesource.com > > Blog: > > http://willemjiang.blogspot.**com<http://willemjiang.blogspot.com>(Engl > > ish)> > > http://jnn.javaeye.com (Chinese) > > > > Twitter: willemjiang > > Weibo: willemjiang -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://dankulp.com/blog Talend - http://www.talend.com
