axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ajith Ranabahu <ajith.ranab...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Axis2] How to Handle faults
Date Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:57:21 GMT
Ahum..
In my personal opinion I see the invokeFault(..) [or whatever it will be 
called] as an elegant way of handling the error.So I don't think it's 
complicating things. it's actually a better way of dealing with the 
complication :)
The very reason why we need a fault flow is to avoid such fall through code 
in the handlers :)

On 8/17/05, Eran Chinthaka <chinthakae@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ok, can I know the things you are thinking of doing in the IN fault
> flow, which you don't wanna do in the normal in flow (of course
> something other than logging :) )
> 
> 
> > Hi dims;
> >
> > Lets say that we have the fault information in the soap header 
> (addressing)
> > . In the current implementation what it does is when a message is 
> received ,
> > takes the inflow (inflow handles ) and give it to the engine and call
> > engine.receive(msgContx) ,
> > addressing handler is in that chain , so we do need to go throgh the 
> inflow
> > upto addressing handler to read the addressing headers to know the fault 
> ,
> > and then we can call engine.receiveFault();
> >
> > so we have to start the in-fault-flow invocation in the middle of 
> in-flow;
> > is that ok?
> 
> Isn't this complicating the things ???
> Without doing the way you propose, you can achieve the samething like 
> this.
> 
> 1. Handler which handlers everything
> 
> invoke (msgctx){
> if(env.getBody().hasFault()){
> // do your fault stuff
> }else{
> // do normal stuff
> }
> }
> 
> 2. Fault Handler (any use cases ??)
> 
> invoke (msgctx){
> if(env.getBody().hasFault()){
> // do your fault stuff
> }
> }
> 
> 3. No Difference on faults handler
> 
> invoke (msgctx){
> // act on msgctx. No difference
> }
> 
> 
> See my point ??
> 
> -- Chinthaka
> 



-- 
Ajith Ranabahu

Mime
View raw message