cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Glynn, Eoghan" <>
Subject RE: JaxwsInterceptorRemoverInterceptor and RM
Date Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:53:59 GMT


Does the issue arise for:

A) (unACKed) messages re-transmitted by RM, or 
B) out-of-band protocol messages originated from the RM layer, or 
C) normal messages mediated by the RM interceptor?

In general, I think it would be v. fragile for the RM layer to have to
be aware that another interceptor in the chain is problematic in some
cases (A, B and/or C above), and to expect it effectively route around
this interceptor.

Wouldn't it be more straight-forward for the HolderOutInterceptor itself
to detect the problematic case and be tolerant of it?

For example, suppose the issue only occurs for RM resends (case A
above). The RM interceptor could set a property on the outMessage to
indicate that its being retransmitted, and the HolderOutInterceptor
could check for this and to allow any message without a holder to pass
thru' unmolested in this case.

The more jumping around between different interceptor chains in
mid-traversal that we do (a la the client-side fault-handling case), the
more fragile the dispatch path IMO. Conversely the more tolerant
individual interceptors are to unexpected edge cases, the more robust
the dispatch.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Diephouse [] 
> Sent: 11 December 2006 21:34
> To:
> Subject: JaxwsInterceptorRemoverInterceptor and RM
> I added a HolderOutInterceptor which handles the holder stuff 
> for outgoing invocations. But I noticed that this still gets 
> executed in RM scenarios, causing issues as what it expects 
> to be there is not there.
> Would it help if RM could do something like this: once it 
> realizes there is an RM message, stop the current chain and 
> start a new chain at a specified phase. The idea here being 
> that the new chain has only the interceptors RM needs.  In code form:
> currentChain.stop();
> newChain.doIntercept(message, startPhase);
> This scenario would be needed for the SAAJ case too where we 
> have a reversed chain, with a pre-made SAAJ response and need 
> to start it somewhere after the first phase.
> Cheers,
> - Dan
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions
> |

View raw message