On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 8:43 PM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 07/05/2021 09:33, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 10:45 AM Rémy Maucherat <r...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 9:07 AM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> I'm wondering if there is merit in a Valve-like mechanism for Coyote. > >>> Name TBD but would look something like: > >>> - callbacks > >>> - after request headers are parsed / before the request is prepared > >>> - after the request is prepared > >>> - before response headers are prepared > >>> - after response headers are prepared / before they are written > >>> - allow multiple "Valves" to be configured > >>> - provide a "default" that doesn't require explicit config > >>> - explicit config can add custom "valves", the default "valve" or any > >>> combination > >>> > >> > >> I thought about it quite a bit in the past, an interceptor [resurrecting > >> the old name] could be a solution to a lot of problems here. So why not. > >> > > > > Thinking about it some more, I would propose investigating either: > > - Adding a new interface in addition to ActionHook to coyote.Request, maybe > > called EventHook (gets a code and the request object). > > - Allowing more than one ActionHook [the codes include plenty of the > > interesting events already especially commit, flush]. User configured hooks > > would be added and called *before* the main coyote hook (obviously). > > Although this sounds easier to implement, this is tricker and error prone > > as the call patterns are funky (also the hook field is duplicated between > > request and response likely for no good reason); basically I would say all > > hook action calls would now go through a helper method on the Request. > > - Something else ;) > > I think a new interface would be cleaner. Some sort of CoyoteListener > configured as elements nested under the Connector. > > Looking into the history of ActionHook, it looks like the intention was > to enable support for custom actions for custom Connectors. I don't > think that was ever used. I switched it to an Enum ages ago mainly as I > was concerned that, with the growing numbers of actions, some Processors > may not be implementing all the actions they needed to. > > Given that we can now define default method implementations in an > interface, I think I prefer an interface with one method per event type > rather than a single method with a parameter that indicates the event type.
Ok, no problem with that plan. > > Your email also got me wondering whether it was time to refactor the > Coyote code to remove ActionHook entirely. Ok, otoh that's probably not going to bring much value. Rémy > > I think I have some experimenting to do. > > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
