Re: [jetty-users] Jetty 9.0.4 issue (also in 9.0.5-SNAPSHOT) with Spring

[Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rossen,

I agree with your interpretation and that is how I originally implemented it.   However there are authoritative test suites that take a different view.....     but I'm inclined to ignore those test suites when they have such nonsensical results, so I should have stuck with my original impl and will now revert to the previous behaviour.

cheers

On 13 August 2013 01:37, Rossen Stoyanchev <rstoyanchev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Greg,

Thanks for commenting. Isn't the spec relatively clear? In other words
that the dispatch should have no effect until the exiting thread has
returned.

I was very glad to find the qualification in the spec when I first
came across the need for it since code in the exiting thread needs to
be able to check reliably if async has started. If we can't rely on
isAsyncStarted, and for example had to implement a request attribute
solution, we'd have to also remove the attribute at some point, so
that the subsequently dispatched thread doesn't think that async has
started. There is no good place I can think of for doing that. It has
to be as late as possible in the exiting thread, i.e. after all
filters, and as early as possible in the subsequently dispatched
thread, i.e. before all filters. Also, such a request attribute would
be framework specific and would not mix well with filters from other
frameworks. This is where I see the purpose of this flag as essential.

Rossen

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rossen, David,
>
> I recently changed the behaviour of isAsyncStarted() under protest because
> it was pointed out to me that we were not following the spec.  I feared that
> it would lead to exactly the kind of problem that you are having here.
>
> Currently I'm thinking that I will revert the default behaviour so that
> isAsyncStarted will return true until the original dispatch is completed,
> but add a configuration option to switch on strict adherence to the spec
> (but I cannot think why anybody would want that).
>
> cheers
>
>
>
>
>
> On 13 August 2013 01:03, Rossen Stoyanchev <rstoyanchev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Simone,
>>
>> Sure, no worries. Actually David already opened a ticket for this issue:
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=413901
>>
>> Maybe the title can be updated now that we have more information. Will
>> that work?
>>
>> Rossen
>> _______________________________________________
>> jetty-users mailing list
>> jetty-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users
>
>
>
>
> --
> Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> http://www.webtide.com
> Developer advice and support from the Jetty & CometD experts.
> Intalio, the modern way to build business applications.
>
> _______________________________________________
> jetty-users mailing list
> jetty-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users
>
_______________________________________________
jetty-users mailing list
jetty-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users

--
Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
http://www.webtide.com
Developer advice and support from the Jetty & CometD experts.
Intalio, the modern way to build business applications.