Jetty

Filters are initialized in wrong order

Details

  • Type: Bug Bug
  • Status: Resolved Resolved
  • Priority: Blocker Blocker
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Affects Version/s: None
  • Fix Version/s: None
  • Component/s: None
  • Labels:
    None
  • Environment:
    jetty 6.0.0beta17
  • Number of attachments :
    0

Description

For a configuration like the following in web.xml :

  <filter>
      <filter-name>myFirstFilter</filter-name>
      <filter-class>com.acme.MyFirstFilter</filter-class>
  </filter>
  <filter>
      <filter-name>mySecondFilter</filter-name>
      <filter-class>com.acme.MySecondFilter</filter-class>
  </filter>

the init methods are called in this order :

  • MySecondFilter.init( FilterConfig filterConfig )
  • MyFirstFilter.init( FilterConfig filterConfig )

instead of :

  • MyFirstFilter.init( FilterConfig filterConfig )
  • MySecondFilter.init( FilterConfig filterConfig )

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Hide
Permalink
Tim Vernum added a comment -

The servlet specification does not define an order for filters to be initialised.
The only requirement is that the init method be called before the doFilter method is called.

Jetty currently initialises filters in the reverse order to which they are declared.

This behaviour may not be desired (and I'm not sure it really makes much sense), but it is not "wrong" according to the spec.

Any application that relies on the order of filter initialisation is not portable between containers.

Show
Tim Vernum added a comment - The servlet specification does not define an order for filters to be initialised. The only requirement is that the init method be called before the doFilter method is called. Jetty currently initialises filters in the reverse order to which they are declared. This behaviour may not be desired (and I'm not sure it really makes much sense), but it is not "wrong" according to the spec. Any application that relies on the order of filter initialisation is not portable between containers.
Hide
Permalink
Emmanuel Venisse added a comment -

I thought it was in the spec.

In my app, I checked in the latest filter if all others was loaded so I can verify if web.xml contains all parts required by my app.

I can certainly do it in an other way.

Show
Emmanuel Venisse added a comment - I thought it was in the spec. In my app, I checked in the latest filter if all others was loaded so I can verify if web.xml contains all parts required by my app. I can certainly do it in an other way.
Hide
Permalink
Greg Wilkins added a comment -

While it may or may not be in the spec.... I see no harm in conforming.
So I have fixed the order to be the same as the declaration order

Show
Greg Wilkins added a comment - While it may or may not be in the spec.... I see no harm in conforming. So I have fixed the order to be the same as the declaration order
Hide
Permalink
Emmanuel Venisse added a comment -

Thanks Greg

Show
Emmanuel Venisse added a comment - Thanks Greg

People

  • Assignee:
    Unassigned
    Reporter:
    Emmanuel Venisse
Vote (0)
Watch (0)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated:
    Resolved: