cxf-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Glynn, Eoghan" <>
Subject RE: http-(conduit|destination) cfg
Date Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:41:27 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Dushin [] 
> Sent: 09 April 2007 16:35
> To:
> Subject: Re: http-(conduit|destination) cfg
> I agree.  List connotes order, and if the things are not 
> ordered, it's misleading to name them such.

It's a bit more subtle that, I think. The individual interceptor lists
associated with each interceptor provider are indeed ordered, so the
list type is appropriate [IMO].

The point is that this ordering is not necessarily maintained in the
full interceptor chain that results from merging the partial lists. This
is due to (a) phase separation, (b) getBefore/getAfter() constraints,
and (c) some questionable logic in PhaseInterceptorChain that I
mentioned in my previous post on this thread.

So rather than making disruptive mods to the InterceptorProvider API, I
think we just need to emphasize (a) & (b) in docco, and "fix" (c) which
is a fairly trivial change.


> In light of other pressures, I suggest we file a Jira and 
> schedule it, accordingly.  Certainly not the end of the 
> world, if it's not gotten to immediately.
> -Fred
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:09 AM, Polar Humenn wrote:
> > TypeO (sometimes I think my mailer leaves out words!) I meant 
> > "Collection *instead* of List". Sorry.

View raw message