Skip to main content

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7

  • From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@...>
  • To: <jsr339-experts@...>
  • Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7
  • Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:08:54 +0000

On 04/02/13 12:05, Marek Potociar wrote:

On Feb 4, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyozkin@...>  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@...
<mailto:sberyozkin@...>>  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








[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7

Marek Potociar 02/01/2013

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7

Sergey Beryozkin 02/01/2013

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7

Marek Potociar 02/01/2013

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7

Sergey Beryozkin 02/01/2013

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7

Marek Potociar 02/01/2013

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7

Sergey Beryozkin 02/01/2013

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7

Marek Potociar 02/01/2013

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7

Sergey Beryozkin 02/04/2013

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7

Marek Potociar 02/04/2013

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7

Sergey Beryozkin 02/04/2013

[jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Re: Need clarification on Section 6.7

Santiago Pericas-Geertsen 02/01/2013
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close