mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julien Vermillard <jvermill...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: MINA 3.0 status
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:23:59 GMT
Hi,
Answer inline

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
> Very cool!  I have a few questions.
>
> Why have a class for WriteQueue and not simply use Queue<WriteRequest>?

Was my first thought actually WriteQueue is an empty extends of
Queue<WriteRequest>
I think we can change it to Queue because I see no needs of custome
fields/method there.

> Why have an interface WriteRequest and not simply use Object?
>
It's for keeping the reference to the future and complete it once the
message is sent.

> Why do we have IoSessionFuture, CloseFuture, ConnectFuture and WriteFuture and not simply
use Future<>?
>
I didn't took a look at Future for now, but yes I think killing
IoFuture and trying to stick to java 5.0 Future is the idea.

> A long time ago I also took a stab a Mina 3 API.  Mine was driven by an async HTTP implementation.
 It would be neat if we could merge the two sets of ideas; not sure how much time I can devote
to this in the short term though.  :)

Same here, it's going slow but continuously anyway keep dropping ideas !
Julien

Mime
View raw message