beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Xibin Zeng <xibin.z...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Control interceptor question
Date Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:10:24 GMT
Hey Ken -

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad that you are willing to fix this problem and
appreciate it.

To the devs on the list, are there any problems if Ken made this fix in for
the current dot release? This would help me a lot, and I think it is a
localized change that has minimal impact other areas.

Your opinion?

Thanks
Xibin

On 1/11/06, Kenneth Tam <kentaminator@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Xibin,
>
> Good catch -- this was just oversight.  You're absolutely right,
> postEvent should also have a Throwable param in its signature.  I'll
> be happy to make this change, but I'm not completely on top of the
> dot-release cycle right now, so I want to make sure this isn't going
> to give anyone problems right now before actually submitting.
>
> thanks,
> k
>
> On 1/10/06, Xibin Zeng <xibin.zeng@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi -
> >
> > There are 4 methods on the
> > org.apache.beehive.controls.spi.svc.Interceptorinterface. For a
> > control operation, preInvoke/postInvoke are called before
> > and after the operation, respectively. The postInvoke callback contains
> the
> > exception that the operation threw. For preEvent/postEvent, however,
> there
> > is no exception information passed to the postEvent callback. This looks
> > inconsistent to me. Imagine that you need to enforce J2EE transaction
> > behaviors using these interceptors (i.e. rollback a transaction in case
> of a
> > system exception), you will need to know what exception has been
> generated
> > as the result of invoking the operation or event callback. You could do
> this
> > for your control operations, but not event callbacks, since the
> exception
> > caught during event callback isn't passsed to the interceptor.
> >
> > There might be reasons why Beehive chose to implement the 2 sets of API
> > differently. In my humble opinion, I think we should make them
> symmetric. If
> > I missed something here, please let me know.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Xibin Zeng
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message