On 11/18/11 10:30 AM, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>
> On Nov 18, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/18/11 10:14 AM, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>> Hi Sergey,
>>>
>>> It's an interesting observation. However, I think there may be use cases in which you want to stop the chain _without_ producing a response.
>>>
>>> Suppose an app has 2 authentication filters (e.g. for different authentication mechanisms it supports): if the first filter authenticates the user, then there's no need to run the next filter but there's also no response to be set. This is why I think there's value in separating continuations from responses.
>>>
>>
>> A filter should not be able to stop the chain unless it is providing a response. How would a filter know whether stopping the chain was correct behavior without full knowledge of the whole filter stack?
>
> User defined filters have the least priority in the chain (by default). As a developer, I know which filters I installed, why shouldn't I be able to control the execution of my chain?
>
Because its really bad programming practice and prone to serious
head-scratching errors?
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com