Hi Sergey,

yes another method that just takes in long timeToKeepState is enough for our 
use.. I've created this jira for this

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-5621


and have attached a simple patch

two methods added to JAXRsClientFactory

public static <T> T create(String baseAddress, Class<T> cls, List<?> providers, 
long timeToKeepState);

public static <T> T createFromModel(String baseAddress, Class<T> cls, String 
modelRef, List<?> providers, long timeToKeepState);


and one method added to WebClient
public static WebClient create(String baseAddress, List<?> providers, long 
timeToKeepState);


thanks,
parwiz



________________________________
 From: Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Please provided ability to pass timeToKeepState from Factory 
methods
 

Hi Parwiz,

On 15/03/14 06:51, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for JAXRSClientFactory and WebClient
> methods that allow user to pass in true for creating
> thread safe proxies there is no way to pass in
> long timeToKeepState to specify how long before cleaning up that state
>
> to be passed down to ThreadLocalClientState constructor.
>
> It's a minor change but will help alot instead of directly creating 
> JAXRSClientFactoryBean and leveraging factory and WebClient instead.
>
> if this is okay with you guys please let me know and i will create a jira
> enhancement request and attach my patch to that.

I've been reluctant to do it because JAXRSClientFactory is overloaded 
with so many helper methods. For example there are several methods 
accepting boolean values, one of them 'threadSafe'...

Well, we have

public static <T> T create(String baseAddress, Class<T> cls, List<?> 
providers, boolean threadSafe).

May be one more helper,

public static <T> T create(String baseAddress, Class<T> cls, List<?> 
providers, int timeToKeepThreadAlive);

we can't have boolean and int; will it help you ? If yes then please 
create a patch

Thanks, Sergey


>
> thanks,
> parwiz
>

Reply via email to