Well, if the exchange has completed, then it seem quite appropriate to fire
the exchange complete listener. Especially if you have logic and/or
logging that you want to make sure runs at the end of every request.
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020, 10:43 PM Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)redhat.com> wrote:
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
>>
>>