On 13/09/12 19:32, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>
> On Sep 13, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>
>> On 13/09/12 16:52, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 13, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Especially when we have different methods having their own name-bound
>>>>> filters, with some of the name-bound filters mixed up between different
>>>>> methods. It can be awkward to ensure say all name-bound ones have
>>>>> priority number set up right for an expectation that say global filters
>>>>> will run before or after name bound ones
>>>>
>>>> PreMatch global filters are having a higher priority over Post-Match
>>>> and name-bound filters
>>>
>>> Is not that they have higher priority, is that they are part of a
>>> _separate_ filter chain. Within that chain, they are still sorted by
>>> priority. Please check the spec on that. I'm also adding some diagrams
>>> in an appendix to clarify this processing pipeline.
>>
>> OK, thanks.
>>
>> However, we still have an undefined 'area'. As I noted in the earlier email, when I have 3+ PostMatch interceptors, some of them global, some of them name-bound, I'd hate go and add numbers to those interceptors in order to get some predictability in the way they be selected, this does not seem cool at all.
>
> The default priority is defined to be USER. If the filter/interceptor is not annotated with @BindingPriority, then just assume USER. What's the difficulty in doing that?
>
I'm a user who has build 5-6 filters. I'd like 2 of them run for all the
matched resource methods and I'd like them to run before other filters,
3-4 for the selected ones only, I'd like them to run after the global
filters if any.
The idea of me going and adding numbers in order to introduce the
predictability makes me wonder there's something wrong with the whole
idea. In CXF we are going to make name-bound interceptors selected first
in such cases always if a given contextual property is enabled - that
will be the spec compliant approach because the spec has nothing to say
re the ordering of the global & name-bound interceptors with the default
priority.
I was trying to offer a perspective of a user, at least the way I see it
You mentioned we effectively have 2 chains, one is pre-match, 2nd one -
post match one. My recommendation is two get a post-match chain split
into 2 ones, post-match global & post-match name-bound one. This will
make it simpler for users to manage the filters, they will know that
global filters will always run before name-bound ones and they do not
have to mess with the numbers, but still do that when some more ordering
is needed
Sergey
> -- Santiago
>