mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: MINA 3.0 status
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:20:19 GMT
 
On Jun 16, 2011, at 1:23 PM, Julien Vermillard wrote:

> 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.

Not sure that a WriteRequest is required for that.  Couldn't you store the future in a map
keyed off the object?

>> 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.

You should take a look at my IoFuture.  I've extended it to allow for clients to register
listeners.  Quite handy.

>> 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 !


Very cool.  I'll still keep updating my copy in the sandbox to incorporate your stuff as well.
 It will serve as a nice comparison between what you have on your branch and mine.


Regards,
Alan



Mime
View raw message