Hi Santiago,
On 13/03/13 13:37, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 ?
>>
>
> Yes, see 6.7.
Thanks, the reason I asked is that that section actually talks about
filters & (writer) interceptors only (assuming the current chain is the
outbound one), but does not mention MBW. But indeed, it makes sense that
the filters/writers should have the chance to work with the mapped
exception even if it originated from MBW
>Also note that exceptions are mapped only once during a request/response processing lifecycle.
Yes, Marek clarified that too
Thanks, Sergey
>
> -- Santiago
>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>