directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <aok...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: [mina] ProtocolHandler interface
Date Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:45:03 GMT
Richard Wallace wrote:

> Trustin Lee wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I admit I am very accustomed with Netty-like session handler
>> interface, but the entry users like Alex and other persons would not
>> feel so familiar with it:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/incubator/directory/network/trunk/mina/src/java/org/apache/mina/protocol/ProtocolHandler.java?rev=122627&view=auto

>>
>>
>> So I want to know what all of you guys are thinking about this
>> ProtocolHandler interface, and to improve its usability.
>>
>> If most of protocols are OK with simple request-response-close
>> connection model, it would be also possible to provide two difference
>> interfaces, ProtocolHandler (simple one) and AdvancedProtocolHandler
>> which extends ProtocolHandler and provides full event handler methods
>> like the current revision of ProtocolHandler.
>>
>> If is absolutely OK if you can suggest me totally different and better
>> interface of course.
>>
>
> I like the interface, overall.  Like I said a couple of days ago, I
> think it is important to notify the handler of all the different network
> events, so it has a way to responds accordingly.  I like the
> messageSent() and you're reasoning behind it and the sessionOpened()
> method would allow a handler to fire off an initial greeting, similar to
> what I've been looking for with a ConnectionEstablishedEvent of some
> sort.  I am a little confused on what the sessionIdle() is meant to do
> tho, could you give a use case where a implementation that uses that?
>
> I do agree with Berin too.  I'd like to see one interface for this stuff
> in protocol-api.  That way, in the future, it would be easy to switch
> between MINA and SEDA without having to write any glue code.
>
Funny I was just thinking abotu you before sending my last email.  Yes I 
do agree about switching between SEDA and MINA.  However if there are 
compelling reasons to (for now only) change the protocol provider 
interface to find common ground between seda, mina and sedang then we 
should just get it done now.  Plus I'd like not to have to be the one 
changing Eve and Kerberos to make it work with MINA or sedang ;).

In the solid state a protocol provider implementation (for LDAP, POP3, 
Kerberos whatever) should not have to change any code to switch from one 
framework to another.  In the end the Protocol API should be solid 
needed no change at all.   Correct me if I'm wrong but think this is 
what you mean.

Alex


Mime
View raw message