mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Adding a secured() event in the IoHandler
Date Sun, 08 Apr 2018 15:56:07 GMT
Ok, I have some kind of 'elegant' soution that is generic enough, with
the fire(event) method added.

Each filter may fire some specific event, they will all be caught in the
IoHandler in one single method, up to the application to take care of
the kind of event it is interested in.

I'm not using an 'int' as it will be problematic for those implementing
filters (one may not want to check every existing filter to know which
integer it can use safely). I'm using an interface (FilterEvent) and
enum implemting this interface :

public interface FilterEvent {


public enum SslEvent implements FilterEvent {

In the IoHandler implementation, that gives :

public void fire(IoSession session, FilterEvent event) throws Exception{
    if (event == SslFilter.SESSION_UNSECURED ) {

The big plus is that we have a typed event, we don't have to take care
of what we don't know (ie, other filters event details)

And in the SslHandler itself :

    // Send the SECURE event only if it's the first SSL handshake
    if (firstSSLNegociation) {
        firstSSLNegociation = false;
        nextFilter.fire(session, SslEvent.SECURED);

Tests are passing green.

Wdyt ?

(side note, ther eis more code than just what I exposed, I will probably
create a diff for those of you interested in the details. The code is
pretty straightforward, there is really nothing complicated)

Tahnks !

Le 05/04/2018 à 15:42, Jonathan Valliere a écrit :
> Yes, its different in that it may act like a buffer, in some phases, but
> doesn’t necessarily break the pattern of filter use.  What your FilterChain
> needs is fire(index) options so the SSL can fire writes relative to itself,
> in response to a read, without having to choke down the whole chain with
> special exceptions via flags in setAttributes.  Make a lot of the design
> easier.  IMHO, I think the biggest problem is the design of SSL filter and
> the limitations of the Filter API.
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Le 05/04/2018 à 14:18, Jonathan Valliere a écrit :
>>> I am concerned that it is bad precedent to add handler methods based on
>>> specific filters.  The purpose of the filter system is that each filter
>> has
>>> no direct knowledge of what is before or after it.  Maybe there could be
>> a
>>> generic “event” handler as part of the receive chain that the SECURED
>> event
>>> could flow down instead?
>> Years agao, we had a discussion about the place where the SSL/TLS
>> handling should be done. I strongly believe that it does not belong to a
>> filter (this is a source of confusion, because it always has to be the
>> very first filter in the chain), but to the HeadFilter (or something
>> like that).
>> In other words, establishing a secured session is intimely coupled with
>> any IO operation, regardless of the application built on top of it. Any
>> other filter is functional, and related to the protocol being set, but
>> TLS/SSL is different, IMHO.
>> Now, your idea to have a otherEvent() method - or whatever could be the
>> name - that covers any event we would like to generate in any filter
>> sounds like a good idea too. We can explore this route.
>> And, to be frank, this is the reason I asked on the mailing list :
>> having the opportunity to ear about other proposals that could make more
>> sense !
>> Thanks !
>> --
>> Emmanuel Lecharny
>> Symas.com
>> directory.apache.org

Emmanuel Lecharny


View raw message