Raymond, Your proposal works for me.
On Feb 4, 2008 11:47 AM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please see my comments below. > > Thanks, > Raymond > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 2:09 PM > Subject: Re: Adding phase-based ordering support for invokers/interceptors > in the InvocationChain > > > > Raymond Feng wrote: > > [snip] > >> As of today, we can add multiple interceptors to the invocation chain, > >> but we cannot control their ordering. > > > > Is that a problem? > > Yes, it's a problem. For example, I had to hack to add the databinding > transformation interceptor to be added before the binding/implementation > invoker. > > > > > When more policies are supported, > >> I see a need to provide some simple ordering mechnisim for > interceptors. > > [snip] > > > > Do you have a specific use case? > > Yes. A few: > 1) binding/implementation invokers have to be the last one in the > invocation > chain. > 2) for a service wire, service-level policy handlers (such as > propategate/suspend transaction) must be called before > implementation-level > handlers (such as managed/noManagedTransaction, security run-as). > 3) if I add a encryption/decryption policy handler, it needs to be invoked > after the data transformation interceptor on the client side, and before > the > data transformation interceptor on the service side. > 4) pass-by-value interceptor (if required) should be invoked before the > implementation-invoker. > > > > > -- > > Jean-Sebastien > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
