cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Pell <ja...@pellcorp.com>
Subject Re: Two different tests for isRequestor??
Date Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:49:44 GMT
Oh and then we have another method  in the AbstractPhaseInterceptor which
calls

protected boolean isRequestor(T message) {
        return MessageUtils.isRequestor(message);
    }

Would it be possible to remove the isRequestor methods from
AbstractOutDatabindingInterceptor and AbstractInDatabindingInterceptor

Anyone know of any reason why that would be problematic?

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Jason Pell <jason@pellcorp.com> wrote:

> Hi All
>
> Was wondering if anyone knows why in AbstractOutDatabindingInterceptor,
> isRequestorRole has a definition of:
>
> protected boolean isRequestor(Message message) {
>         return
> Boolean.TRUE.equals(message.containsKey(Message.REQUESTOR_ROLE));
>     }
>
> Whereas in AbstractInDatabindingInterceptor its:
>
> protected boolean isRequestor(Message message) {
>         return Boolean.TRUE.equals(message.get(Message.REQUESTOR_ROLE));
>     }
>
>
> The first is just returning true if the Message.REQUESTOR_ROLE exists,
> whereas for the second the Message.REQUESTOR_ROLE must be equal to TRUE.
>
> Seems very strange to have this difference.  Dones anyone know the history
> of this?
>
>
>
>
>

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