Hi
I'd like to double-check something,
When MBW throws an exception which gets mapped, the response will be
routed via the available response filters and/or writers, is that correct ?
Thanks, Sergey
On 04/02/13 12:08, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> On 04/02/13 12:05, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyozkin_at_talend.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/02/13 16:42, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>>> I see what you mean. Feel free to file a Jira issue so that we can
>>>> consider it in 2.1 timeframe.
>>> Sounds good, will do.
>>>
>>> By the way, AFAIK, MBW can also throw the exception, and the process
>>> is similar, if the exception is mapped then feed Response to MBW
>>> again and if MBW throws it again - propagate to the container.
>>>
>>> I'm assuming that the filters throwing exceptions and then processing
>>> mapped responses does not affect the related MBW process, so
>>> effectively we can have the exceptions thrown and mapped twice on the
>>> server response chain, once by filters, next by MBW.
>>>
>>> Or, actually, 3 times ?
>>>
>>> Filters, then possibly WriterInterceptor and finally - MBW ?
>>
>> No, the idea is to only re-map exception once. So, in general, no
>> matter where the exception comes from, if causes another exception,
>> the exception will be propagated to container.
>>
> OK, makes sense
>
> Sergey
>
>
>> Marek
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Sergey
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Marek
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyozkin_at_talend.com
>>>> <mailto:sberyozkin_at_talend.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree it makes sense in most cases to support it.
>>>>> I think there could be some issues though like double logging or
>>>>> similar, etc, when the response filter which throws the exception has
>>>>> been prioritized to be after such filters like logging one, etc.
>>>>> The user might see for example from the in& out loggers:
>>>>>
>>>>> Request: a
>>>>> Response: aResponse
>>>>> Response: aResponse2 or even aResponse
>>>>>
>>>>> May be it is negligible this issue. Perhaps it can make sense to
>>>>> consider adding an annotation like @NonReentrant or similar either for
>>>>> 2.0 or 2.1 if the group agrees it can be warranted. I'm easy either
>>>>> way
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers. Sergey
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>