cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Mao <james....@iona.com>
Subject Re: isGET in interceptors...
Date Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:02:11 GMT

>>
>> I'm OK with the changing the chain dynamically, they both works. if we
>> change the chain dynamically, then for both the SOAP binding and XML
>> binding and any other binding to filter the interceptors dynamically, i
>> mean the maintenance cost is same. but this approach do have a benefit,
>> the benefit is that all the isGET logic in the same place, if we want to
>> add some configuration for this function, it'll be more easier. But the
>> other side is, it'll be harder to change the chain if the interceptor is
>> coarse-grained, that means we want some part of the logic of the
>> inteceptor, but in some conditions we want to exclude the interceptors,
>> but yes, you can break down the interceptors into pieces to work around
>> the problem. So there's pros and cons.
>
>
> Can you please justify the performance benefit of this if we go down this
> route? As noted in the previous email if we have a dynamic interceptor
> removal, than we still have problems if a user adds an interceptor and 
> they
> aren't aware they need to look for the isGET case.
>
> I think we should synthesize a document, and unless you can provide some
> compelling performance reason I don't see any reason not too. You haven't
> shown anything to back up your reasoning that there is a performance 
> issue.

I can provide the performance result as along as you finished the client 
part, i thought you haven't finished the client part of the http 
binding. am i right?
And i think we can find another way, a better solution for this. i'm 
thinking of it, but since i'm working on tooling refactoring, so please 
give me a few days on it.

But i dont'  think to synthesize a document is a good solution for this 
(especially you have to synthesize the doc in both the client and server 
side as far as i understood).
So if that's true, i think they are different user scenario. but may be 
i'm wrong. because i have not seen a real demo to show how the whole GET 
works in the http binding. maybe you can provide a demo to show how it 
works? and it'll be easier for us (especially for me) to understand if 
they are the same or different scenario. and it'll also easier for me to 
test the performance.

BTW, the current hello_world demo(XML binding, SOAP11 binding and SOAP12 
binding) already included the GET support.
And if you add the demo, please also add the GET HttpBinding support for 
both the xml binding and soap1.1 and soap1.2 binding. I'll give it a try.

Thanks in advance.
James.


Mime
View raw message