activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nathan Mittler" <nathan.mitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: New refactored STOMP implementation.
Date Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:48:54 GMT
Hiram,
BTW, did you run the activemq-cpp cpp-unit tests against the broker with the
new stomp transport?  I took a look at your code and it looks like you still
have the request-id/response-id headers in there, so it should work fine.
Looks a lot simpler - easier to find your way around.

Nate

On 7/4/06, James Strachan < james.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It all looks good to me. Given we've already hit AMQ-793 recently...
>
> http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-793
>
> due to the flow control issues in the stomp implementation under load,
> I'd say lets get rid of the old version and go with the new.
>
> On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > Howdy STOMP developers,
> >
> > Just wantted to let you know that I spent the day doing some major
> > refactoring to the STOMP server side protocol implementation in
> ActiveMQ.
> > The previous implementation did all the work inside a WireFormat
> layer.  The
> > poll model that it imposed made some things difficult to do and made the
>
> > code just ugly.
> >
> > I refactored it so that StompWireFormat takes the STOMP frames and
> produces
> > StompCommand objects which are like a 1:1 mapping (Perhaps I should
> rename
> > that to StompFrame).  Then the stomp transport factory sets up the
> > TcpTransport to be filtered by a StompTransportFilter which converts the
> > StompCommand/Protocol into the ActiveMQ commands and Protocol.  Since
> the
> > Transport is more event based and is also aware of the transport
> lifecycle,
> > it should let us continue to extend and add more features to the STOMP
> > protocol easier.
> >
> > I implemented this in a new package so that we can easily switch back to
> the
> > old implementation if needed.  Out of the box we are now using the new
> > implementation.  But I'd like to get some feed back to see if it
> introduced
> > any new bugs or if it fixed any old bugs.  If all goes well, I'll get
> rid of
> > the old version soon.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message