2010/1/13 Oleksiy Stashok <Oleksiy.Stashok_at_sun.com>
> Hi,
>
> on topic:
>
> I'm not sure this should be fixed by adding support for mulitple
>> interceptors (on a ProcessorTask, e.g.). Most of the changes so far involve
>> altering deprecated classes which is a little contradictory. In 2.x, the
>> planned approach would be to use the port-unification/ProtocolFilter
>> approach and I think we should do that for 1.9.x as well. It's a much, much
>> clean approach and could be done with relatively little change to existing
>> code. It'd just be another PF in the chain that would halt any further
>> execution of the chain. So it'd be the same basic logic as the current
>> suggested approach without all the ugly hackery going on to retrofit this
>> update in a non-breaking fashion. As it is now, it's looking more and more
>> like a breaking API change on the 1.9.x tree and that's something we're
>> striving to avoid. Thoughts?
>>
> You're right, this issue is basically addressed just to 1.9.x branch. The
> extension will help us to support multiple protocols/frameworks on top of
> HTTP. Now, Grizzly HTTP server is an atomic block, so there is no other way
> to register some custom HTTP protocol implementation inside it than
> implementing own HTTP Interceptor.
>
> In 2.0 (may be not first release) we will split HTTP/Web container
> implementation into separate Filters: HTTPFilter and Web container Filter.
> HTTP Filter will be just responsible for parsing HTTP request so developers
> will be able to insert any custom protocol Filter next to HTTP Filter in
> order to implement custom HTTP based protocol.
>
>
> off topic:
> I will just write my thoughts and won't make any other comment on that.
>
> I will never work with 2.0. I disagree with its design.
>>
> It's your right. So far I heard no concrete proposal or comment from you on
> 2.0 design.
>
> Its of interest that JFA dont like it either, wonder why he left anyhow ?
>>
> That's so absurd and not truthful comment, that I have nothing to say.
>
Is it absurd ? . its more like that you dont like that information and hence
tries to dirty talk it without any factual information whatsoever.
Its available in my gmail chat logs with JFA. i could give you my gmail
login so you can check for yourself.
--
regards
gustav trede