Hi Richard
On 26/11/12 12:29, Richard Opalka wrote:
Hi Sergey,


On 11/26/2012 01:21 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
Hi Richard
On 26/11/12 12:15, Richard Opalka wrote:
Dear CXF developers,

     I'm analyzing our recent CXF continuation related failures in CI
and I identified the following problem:

SVN commit id: 1409193

introduced

---
@@ -57,32 +57,30 @@ public class Servlet3ContinuationProvider implements
ContinuationProvider {

           if (continuation == null) {
               continuation = new Servlet3Continuation();
+        } else {
+            continuation.startAsyncAgain();
           }
           return continuation;
       }
---

method call that causes our JBossWeb to throw IllegalStateException.
According to startAsync() javadoc for Throws:

http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/servlet/ServletRequest.html#startAsync%28%29


---
Throws:
      IllegalStateException - if this request is within the scope of a
filter or servlet that does not support asynchronous operations (that
is, isAsyncSupported() returns false), or if this method is called again
without any asynchronous dispatch (resulting from one of the
AsyncContext#dispatch methods), is called outside the scope of any such
dispatch, or is called again within the scope of the same dispatch, or
if the response has already been closed
---

JBossWeb is strictly following these ISE guidelines (is not lenient
like e.g. Jakarta Tomcat).

What would you say about
"Subsequent invocations of this method, or its overloaded variant, will
return the same AsyncContext instance, reinitialized as appropriate. " ?

Without this call I can not have the test doing multiple timeouts on the
same continuation working...

Makes sense to me. I had a look to our JBoss Web code again and I
noticed one suspicious line there - I'm going to discuss it with our folks.


Oh, thanks for that, I've just sent one more follow-up, sorry about the noise, should've waited :-)

Cheers, Sergey



The last issue that I identified with Servlet3ContinuationProvider is
the isNew flag has incorrect initial value - it should be *true*.
Sure - needs to be fixed

Thanks


Thanks, Sergey


Cheers,

Rio






Reply via email to