On 2/13/02 3:33 AM, "Paulo Silveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Each valve in the turbine3 pipeline is invoked(), then invokeNext().
> Just like tomcat.
> This seems ok, but why is this better than doing a for in each valve,
> and invoking it. Because this way the stack becomes so huge!
>
> I mean, instead of doing this:
>
> (TurbinePipeline.java)
> public void invoke(RunData data)
> throws TurbineException, IOException
> {
> // Initialize the per-thread state for this thread
> state.set(new Integer(0));
>
> // Invoke the first Valve in this pipeline for this request
> invokeNext(data);
> }
>
> Doing something like:
>
> public void invoke(RunData data)
> throws TurbineException, IOException
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < valves.length; i++)
> {
> valves[i].invoke();
> }
> }
>
> This way it would be a Pipeline calling the valves, the otherway the
> valve calls the next valve.
You may not necessarily want to execute _all_ of the valves in sequence.
Under certain conditions, state contained in the ValveContext, you may not
execute a type or class of valve. This is the design at any rate, we lifted
the pattern wholus bolus from catalina. We may still make minor adjustments.
>
> And why exaclty it throws IOException?
I think this is an artifact of the internals of Catalina, I'm not sure if we
need it. Dan popped in the Catalina stuff as to kick start development with
the pipeline but what's there may not reflect what is there when we're
finished.
> Paulo
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
http://tambora.zenplex.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
