I guess that would work as well, it's maybe a bit weird as in this case the
proceed() invocation is a noop, but I think that is ok.
Stuart
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 13:34, Brad Wood <bdw429s(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Why shouldn't it just fire in that case? That would certainly
follow the
principle of least astonishment.
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020, 10:30 PM Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> It should probably throw an exception in this case.
>
> Stuart
>
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 09:06, Brad Wood <bdw429s(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a basic exchange listener configured for testing that simply logs
>> at the end of each request something like
>>
>> exchange.addExchangeCompleteListener((httpServerExchange, nextListener)
>> -> {
>> if (httpServerExchange.getStatusCode() > 399) {
>> CONTEXT_LOG.warnf("responded: Status Code %s (%s)",
>> httpServerExchange.getStatusCode(), fullExchangePath(httpServerExchange));
>> }
>> nextListener.proceed();
>> });
>>
>> This works great, but if the exchange is ended-- for example using the
>> response-code handler-- then the exchange complete listener never fires.
>>
>> Is this working as designed?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> ~Brad
>>
>> *Developer Advocate*
>> *Ortus Solutions, Corp *
>>
>> E-mail: brad(a)coldbox.org
>> ColdBox Platform:
http://www.coldbox.org
>> Blog:
http://www.codersrevolution.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> undertow-dev mailing list
>> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>
>