cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Diephouse" <...@envoisolutions.com>
Subject Re: isGET in interceptors...
Date Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:33:51 GMT
On 12/7/06, James Mao <james.mao@iona.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

- Dan


-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

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