Return-Path: 
 <user-return-1934-apmail-hivemind-user-archive=hivemind.apache.org@hivemind.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-hivemind-user-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 18128 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2006 14:25:34 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Jul 2006 14:25:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 55386 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jul 2006 14:25:33 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-hivemind-user-archive@hivemind.apache.org
Received: (qmail 55374 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jul 2006 14:25:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact user-help@hivemind.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:user-help@hivemind.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:user-unsubscribe@hivemind.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:user@hivemind.apache.org>
List-Id: <user.hivemind.apache.org>
Reply-To: user@hivemind.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list user@hivemind.apache.org
Received: (qmail 55365 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jul 2006 14:25:33 -0000
Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:25:33 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
	tests=
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Received: from [216.68.127.190] (HELO carmanconsulting.com) (216.68.127.190)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:25:31 -0700
Received: from CARMANI9300 (carmanconsulting.com [127.0.0.1])
	by carmanconsulting.com (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6JEP1ud027396
	for <user@hivemind.apache.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:25:09 -0400
From: "James Carman" <james@carmanconsulting.com>
To: <user@hivemind.apache.org>
Subject: RE: MethodInterceptorFactory and multiple interceptors
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:24:59 -0400
Message-ID: <016101c6ab3f$1fb4f4c0$0f50058f@CARMANI9300>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <44BE3F4D.9020902@kawoo.co.uk>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
thread-index: AcarPlgJ78GJ6sRBTCiOtIPkTQ8nPgAALOhA
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

There shouldn't be any difference.  Notice the "name" attribute, as Knut
pointed out.  That's what is used to tell them apart.

-----Original Message-----
From: Johan Lindquist [mailto:johan@kawoo.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:19 AM
To: user@hivemind.apache.org
Subject: Re: MethodInterceptorFactory and multiple interceptors

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

What happens if you contribute twice to the service point outside of the
service point definition?

Johan

James Carman wrote:
> In my test case for multiple method interceptors, I use multiple like
this:
> 
> <module id="hivemind.lib.test" version="1.0.0">
>   
>   <service-point id="FortuneCookie"
> interface="org.apache.hivemind.lib.impl.FortuneCookie">
>     <create-instance
> class="org.apache.hivemind.lib.impl.FortuneCookieImpl"/>
>     <interceptor service-id="hivemind.lib.MethodInterceptorFactory"
> name="first">
>       <impl
> object="instance:org.apache.hivemind.lib.impl.SuffixMethodInterceptor" />
>     </interceptor>
>     <interceptor service-id="hivemind.lib.MethodInterceptorFactory"
> name="second">
>       <impl
> object="instance:org.apache.hivemind.lib.impl.SuffixMethodInterceptor" />
>     </interceptor>
>   </service-point>
>   
> </module>
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johan Lindquist [mailto:johan@kawoo.co.uk] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:22 AM
> To: user@hivemind.apache.org
> Subject: MethodInterceptorFactory and multiple interceptors
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I have recently been using the MethodInterceptorFactory to create
> interceptors based on the AOP Alliance libraries.
> 
> Now, it is all fine until I realised that I can not have two different
> interceptors (using the MethodInterceptorFactory service id) added to
> the same service point.
> 
> This would make sense if you for example referred to the logging
> interceptor - two of it would be kinda dum.  But since the
> MethodInterceptorFactory is simply providing the plumbing for the real
> implementation, 2 or more of this particular contribution should be fine
> right?
> 
> Not sure if this is an easy problem to solve or not?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> johan
> 

- --
you too?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEvj9M1Tv8wj7aQ34RArZiAJsGllZwd5FgwABxjAGU7OJRKathuQCdHoNZ
S6bhZkekFEjAfCrOphjtI0E=
=O2B6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----