Received: by 10.101.116.9 with SMTP id t9mr3193889anm.19.1308661682828;
        Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: google-guice-dev@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.100.12.13 with SMTP id 13ls1454765anl.2.gmail; Tue, 21 Jun
 2011 06:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.192.27 with SMTP id u27mr3132244anp.21.1308661682059;
        Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.192.27 with SMTP id u27mr3132243anp.21.1308661682040;
        Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <3sZcATgwOAFg6EE6B4-6K8246EE6B42E34....@codesite.bounces.google.com>
Received: from mail-gy0-f203.google.com (mail-gy0-f203.google.com [209.85.160.203])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v1si3215anh.2.2011.06.21.06.08.02
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of 3sZcATgwOAFg6EE6B4-6K8246EE6B42E34....@codesite.bounces.google.com designates 209.85.160.203 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.203;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of 3sZcATgwOAFg6EE6B4-6K8246EE6B42E34....@codesite.bounces.google.com designates 209.85.160.203 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=3sZcATgwOAFg6EE6B4-6K8246EE6B42E34....@codesite.bounces.google.com
Received: by mail-gy0-f203.google.com with SMTP id 4so515404gyg.4
        for <google-guice-dev@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:08:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.17.211 with SMTP id t19mr6233242qaa.16.1308661681863; Tue,
 21 Jun 2011 06:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: codesite-nore...@google.com
X-Generated-By: Google Code
X-GoogleCode-Project: google-guice
X-GoogleCode-Issue-Id: 635
References: <21-1492727805935382846-3197605416504241051-google-guice=googlecode.com@googlecode.com>
 <0-1492727805935382846-3197605416504241051-google-guice=googlecode.com@googlecode.com>
In-Reply-To: <21-1492727805935382846-3197605416504241051-google-guice=googlecode.com@googlecode.com>
Message-ID: <22-1492727805935382846-3197605416504241051-google-guice=googlecode.com@googlecode.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:08:01 +0000
Subject: Re: Issue 635 in google-guice: GuiceFilter uses wrong instance of
 FilterPipeline if used with multiple servlet context and multiple injectors
From: google-gu...@googlecode.com
To: google-guice-dev@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes


Comment #22 on issue 635 by mccu...@gmail.com: GuiceFilter uses wrong  
instance of FilterPipeline if used with multiple servlet context and  
multiple injectors
http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/issues/detail?id=635

> Keeping separation of concerns in mind, can you please explain what  
> GuiceFilter
> and GuiceServletContextListener are meant to do, independently of one  
> another?

I believe I answered this in an earlier comment (note: its just my personal  
view, I didn't design these classes)

* GuiceFilter is responsible for filtering requests/responses by using the  
pipeline(s) injected into it
* GuiceServletContextListener is responsible for creating injectors  
on-demand that inject pipelines

So while there is a link between the two - one creates injectors, the other  
expects pipeline(s) to be injected - they could conceivably work  
independently, in that you could put in your own Filter implementation that  
just used the injector created and stashed in the context by the listener.  
Or you could write your own listener that used a different pipeline  
implementation (assuming the FilterPipeline type was opened up as in my  
patch).

Conversely, why should these classes be combined? They implement different  
interfaces that have no relation or reference to each other in the servlet  
spec, so combining them is imho purely an implementation detail to avoid a  
little bit of indirection.