Motivation:
At the moment we call initChannel(...) in the channelRegistered(...) method which has the effect that if another ChannelInitializer is added within the initChannel(...) method the ordering of the added handlers is not correct and surprising. This is as the whole initChannel(...) method block is executed before the initChannel(...) block of the added ChannelInitializer is handled.
Modifications:
Call initChannel(...) from within handlerAdded(...) if the Channel is registered already. This is true in all cases for our DefaultChannelPipeline implementation. This way the ordering is always as expected. We still keep the old behaviour as well to not break code for other ChannelPipeline implementations (if someone ever wrote one).
Result:
Correct and expected ordering of ChannelHandlers.
Motivation:
I received a report the its not possible to add another ChannelInitialiter in the initChannel(...) method, so we should add a test case for it.
Modifications:
Added testcase.
Result:
Validate that all works as expected.
Motivation:
If a handler is added to the pipeline within ChannelInitializer::initChannel via
addFirst(...) then it will not receive the channelRegistered event. The same
handler added via addLast(...) will receive the event. This different behavior
is unlikely to be expected by users and can cause confusion.
Modifications:
Let ChannelInitializer::channelRegistered propagate the event by passing it to
the pipeline instead of firing it on the ChannelHandlerContext.
Result:
The channelRegistered event is propagated to handlers regardless of the method
used to add it to the pipeline (addFirst/addLast).
