directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <>
Subject RE: [mina] Refactoring MINA IoFilterChain (Was: IoFilters: DIRMINA-121 / 122)
Date Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:25:43 GMT
So, there is no way for me to impose a Blacklist filter specific to a
handler before I do SSL and all other stuff someone else has configured
already at port level?

That does not sound right.

Jose Alberto

P.S. Do not take me wrong, I want the least amount of copying as
possible. As a matter of fact, once we have port level filters I would
move all session level settings to port level settings. Nothing else
makes sense to me.
Session level filters should only be used in very specific cases related
to the actual session you are working with. Hence, lazy copying will be
reduced to a minimum.

Jose Alberto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Irving, Dave [] 
> Sent: 15 November 2005 15:12
> To: Apache Directory Developers List
> Subject: RE: [mina] Refactoring MINA IoFilterChain (Was: 
> IoFilters: DIRMINA-121 / 122)
> > My understanding of Niklas e-mail was that his main reason 
> WAS spring.
> At the moment though, a handler which wants a certain filter 
> per port must have this logic (directly, or injected) in the handler.
> It seems like a nice feature to be able to specify filters on 
> a per acceptor and port level.
> > As long as you have addBefore/addAfter (which exist on 0.8, not sure
> about 0.9) you will have to clone, 
> > as the filter chain is mutable. The best you can do is to implement
> lazy copy. I do not see a real way out of it.
> A mutable chain is fine with the proposed approach. The 
> implementation details have been discussed in earlier emails, 
> but basically an owning "CommandChains" (or something) class 
> fixes the head and tail of sub-chains (which users cant do) 
> to manage sub-chain routing.
> What this means is that whatever a user can currently do to a 
> filter chain, they will still be able to do after the chain.
> > So what happens when I call IoFilterChain.addFirst() on
> sessionCreated(). As I said the best you can do is lazy copy.
> I don't think so. The filter chain a ** user ** is exposed to 
> is just the per session chain. The user can still make any 
> changes to this as they desire. They can clear it if they want! 
> The crucial bit is that the implementation (which the user 
> doesn't see) has fixed head and tail filters to manage the 
> sub-chain routing. Users can play with the filters all they want.
> Hope this is clearer
> > Jose Alberto
> Dave
> This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the 
> intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary 
> material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal 
> privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or 
> used by, any other party. If you are not an intended 
> recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any 
> attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.

View raw message