james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Short" <ssh...@postx.com>
Subject RE: handling connection vs sheduler problem
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:21:41 GMT
Agreed,  I think using the socket timeout option is the way to go. I don't see any advantage
in implementing a manual timeout solution.  One less moving part to go wrong and less overhead
because we remove the SchedulerNotifyInputStream.

Regards
Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 3:59 PM
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: RE: handling connection vs sheduler problem
> 
> 
> Andrei,
> 
> What issue do you have with using socket timeout?  Is it not 
> reliable enough for you?  In the case of his problem, calling 
> it fixes a platform specific problem, and should be neutral 
> for other platforms.
> 
> I've looked at replacing the DefaultTimeScheduler with 
> something more appropriate for James, but I haven't had time 
> to do it yet.
> 
> 	--- Noel
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrei Ivanov [mailto:myfam@surfeu.fi]
> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 18:10
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: handling connection vs sheduler problem
> 
> 
> Hi
> 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)
> 
> Andrei
> 
> ----- 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:   
> <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For 
> additional commands, e-mail: 
> <mailto:james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> 
> 

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


Mime
View raw message