Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 41459 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2001 14:05:04 -0000 Received: from cochrane.krankikom.de (194.77.169.5) by h31.sny.collab.net with SMTP; 19 Jan 2001 14:05:04 -0000 Received: from platt ([194.77.169.59]) by cochrane.krankikom.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA11388 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:05:03 +0100 From: "Paulo Gaspar" To: Subject: RE: Interceptors Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:17:45 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N As a "piping" mechanism (as opposed to a "hooking" one) the kind of thing Donald described is my favorite one. My other $0.02 are that I agree 100% with Jon on this. People will get confused if you have 2 different ways of using valves from a minor version to the other. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com] > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 02:22 > > on 1/18/01 4:28 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" > wrote: > > > If you change the names and parameter orders a little, you have > just quoted > > the > > new api for javax.servlet.Filter in the 2.3 Proposed Final Draft. > > > > I'd be game to change the Valve APIs to conform to this kind of > pattern in a > > 4.1 > > timeframe, if people prefer it. If we're ever going to do > this, earlier is > > better > > (before too many valves that have to be changed get created). > > I'm almost thinking that this should be done for 4.0 because 4.0 > is going to > be implementing the 2.3 spec and having two different filtering > mechanism's > doing essentially the same thing doesn't make much sense to me... > > -jon