james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrei Ivanov" <my...@surfeu.fi>
Subject handling connection vs sheduler problem
Date Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:09:49 GMT
I don't think that setting socket timeout will help to solve scheduler
problem. It is not possible to control connection by setting socket timeout.
As it was several times mentioned before scheduler isn't designed to be used
as in James servers. It is nice and elegant solution, I mean
ShedulerNotifyŠnputStream, but it results in overhead we know about. The
solution is in cornerstone connection classes which create connection
handlers for James. My idea is to adapt (modify) cornerstone connection
classes by adding connection control facilities.

About cornerstone. I've been using different cornerstone blocks a lot for my
project. I can say that cornerstone is well written and reliable library. On
the other hand for complex and particular phoenix based applications (like
James) cornerstone shall be considered more as guideline than ready to use
solution. If we really want to improve James we shall adapt cornerstone for
James (but not James for cornerstone as it is now)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel J. Bergman" <noel@devtech.com>
To: "James Users List" <james-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:04 AM
Subject: RE: Admin problem

> I have no problem with the socket.setSoTimeout(timeout) call.  We should
> start making more use of setSoTimeout elsewere, and wean ourselves off of
> the scheduler.
> With respect to the logging, I think that only the one where we echo the
> timeout is necessary, not the one where we log it for each connection.
> Would you please submit a [PATCH] to James-Dev?
> --- Noel
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

View raw message