Modify PolicyHandler.afterInvoke() invocation position in the invocation chain in 1.6.1? (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Yang, Gang CTR US USA]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Hi, Simon and others,

I did not get any response for my request for help on the 2.0 Policy
issues (see the thread under " How to add new security extension to
Tuscany binding.ws?" and " Tuscany 2.0 policy"), so I went ahead down to
the second path Simon suggested - to work with PolicyHandler extension
point in 1.6.x (see the thread under " How to add new security extension
to Tuscany binding.ws?").

Everything went well on the reference side until I was testing the
service side. I think the current PolicyHandler calling sequence has
some defect and the model does not fit the need to add WS-security to
the binding.ws.axis2 binding implementation. Here's what the current
code is doing:

Axis2ServiceInOutSyncMessageReceiver. invokeBusinessLogic() calls
Axis2ServiceProvider.invokeTarget() which inturn calls
PolicyHandler.beforeInvoke(), wire.invoke() and then immediately
PolicyHandler.afterInvoke(). But at this point, the outbound
MessageContext, outMC, has not been constructed, which is needed by
WS-security logic in my PolicyHandler.xxxInvoke().

What I would like is to delay the calling of PolicyHandler.afterInvoke()
to a later time after the outbound MessageContext, outMC, has not been
constructed and call the PolicyHandler.afterInvoke() with the outMC
instead of inMC, which does not make sense since the endpoint method has
been invoked. So I modified Axis2ServiceInOutSyncMessageReceiver and
Axis2ServiceProvider to delay the calling of PolicyHandler.afterInvoke()
until after outMC has been constructed in
Axis2ServiceInOutSyncMessageReceiver. invokeBusinessLogic() (see the
following code segments) and it seems to work out well for my need. This
in my opinion a better model since upon return from wire.invoke(), we
are not dealing with response (out bound) rather than request (in
bound). However, I do not know if this would break any thing and if you
are willing to make that change.

Thanks,
Gang

Code segments:

Axis2ServiceInOutSyncMessageReceiver.Axis2ServiceInOutSyncMessageReceive
r(...) {
                ....
            OMElement responseOM =
(OMElement)provider.invokeTarget(operation, args, inMC);
            
            /*
            for ( PolicyHandler policyHandler : policyHandlerList ) {
                policyHandler.afterInvoke(operation, args, inMC,
responseOM);
            }
            */

            SOAPEnvelope soapEnvelope =
getSOAPFactory(inMC).getDefaultEnvelope();
            if (null != responseOM ) {
                soapEnvelope.getBody().addChild(responseOM);
            }
            outMC.setEnvelope(soapEnvelope);
 
outMC.getOperationContext().setProperty(Constants.RESPONSE_WRITTEN,
Constants.VALUE_TRUE);
                
                // Gang: Added
            for ( PolicyHandler policyHandler : policyHandlerList ) {
                policyHandler.afterInvoke(responseOM, outMC);
            }
                ...
}

Axis2ServiceProvider.invokeTarget(...) {
          ...
        // find the runtime wire and invoke it with the message
        RuntimeWire wire =
((RuntimeComponentService)contract).getRuntimeWire(getBinding());
        Object response =  wire.invoke(op, msg);
        
          // Gang: Commented out
        // for ( PolicyHandler policyHandler : policyHandlerList ) {
        //    policyHandler.afterInvoke(response, inMC);
        //}        
        
        return response;
}



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE