Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>
>> Depends on the patch. ;-)
>
>> I understand the use case and I definitely would want it to be
>> supported. I am currently just unsure, whether this isn't already
>> possible, but I assume you have checked sufficiently.
>
Jochen,
B)
I am slowly getting acquainted with your source code. Going through it again
I realized that my first suggestion (changing the constructor) won't work.
The InitializationHandler is not run in the constructor. Hence, an
InstantiationHandler in needed. It will be called whenever a new instance is
to be created.
C)
I also noticed that the behaviour of getInstance is not what I would expect
(there might be a perfectly legal reason) when it comes down to how the
InitializationHandler affects the method.
Whenever there is an InitializationHandler set a new instance is created
(see below)!
The InitializationHandler shouldn't affect this, this is what the initial
pInstanceIsStateless controls.
If you agree I'll try to provide a patch for C) and B) (reflection work will
take a little more time) asap, so that it makes it into 3.0.
private Object getInstance(XmlRpcRequest pRequest) throws
XmlRpcException {
final InitializationHandler ih = mapping.getInitializationHandler();
if (ih == null) {
return theInstance == null ? newInstance() : theInstance;
} else {
final Object instance = newInstance();
ih.init(pRequest, instance);
return instance;
}
}
Regards,
Jimisola
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/InitializationHandler-%28vs-InstantiationHandler%29-tf1963850.html#a5403734
Sent from the Apache Xml-RPC - Dev forum at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
