Hi all,
I'm currently working out design details for a new project, and I've
discovered a few constraints in Turbine that I'd like to discuss.
As it stands right now, the doGet method in Turbine does a lot
of stuff, and it isn't easy to override or enhance the behavior
(although the capability to alter the SessionValidator, login
process, etc. is quite nice). Specifically I need to do two things
in my application that are a bit difficult with Turbine as it stands now.
1. I want to be able to do some general bookkeeping/logging for
each request before any other processing is done.
2. I need to do some generic initialization on each HttpSession
object after it is created.
Of course I could extend Turbine, override doGet, copy the
doGet code into my subclass and modify it as necessary,
but then I wouldn't pick up changes to doGet in Turbine.
Here's what I'd like to propose:
1. Add a method called something like preHandleRequest to
Turbine that would get called like this (code modified from
Turbine.java):
// check to make sure that we started up properly
if (initFailureMessage != null)
{
throw new Exception ( initFailureMessage );
}
preHandleRequest(req, res);
// get general RunData here...
The default implementation of preHandleRequest wouldn't do
anything, but a Turbine subclass could override it as desired.
2. Add a method called initializeSession that looks like this
void initializeSession(RunData data)
{
String[] names = data.getSession().getValueNames();
if (names != null)
{
for (int i=0; i< names.length; i++)
{
data.getSession().removeValue(names[i]);
}
}
}
initializeSession would then get called from two places in doGet:
// perform turbine specific initialization below
data = RunDataFactory.getRunData( req, res,
getServletConfig() );
initializeSession(data);
...
if ( data.hasAction() &&
data.getAction().equalsIgnoreCase(TurbineResources
.getString("action.login")) )
{
initializeSession(data);
ActionLoader.getInstance().exec ( data, data.getAction() );
Now I could override initializeSession in my subclass, call the default
implementation, and then perform my own custom initialization.
What does everyone think about this?
As a side question, does it make things easier for everyone if I
submit suggestions for comment in this way, or is it easier if I
just make my proposed changes and submit a patch for review?
Turbine is already one of the nicest web application frameworks that
I've seen yet, and I hope that my comments (and ultimately code
submissions) will make it even better.
-Jon
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
