Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 27207 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2005 12:17:51 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Nov 2005 12:17:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 32260 invoked by uid 500); 14 Nov 2005 12:17:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 32204 invoked by uid 500); 14 Nov 2005 12:17:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 32193 invoked by uid 99); 14 Nov 2005 12:17:49 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:17:49 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [212.18.242.163] (HELO cellectivity.com) (212.18.242.163) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:17:39 -0800 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5E915.29658AA4" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Subject: [MINA] 0.9 Protocol implementations Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:15:54 -0000 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MINA] 0.9 Protocol implementations thread-index: AcXpFSlFePEcTVpxTxqbqz74+GEpDw== From: "Jose Alberto Fernandez" To: "Apache Directory Developers List" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5E915.29658AA4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, =20 With the new APIs in 0.9 there are no differences between Io and Protocol level filters and such.=20 One thing I found very useful in 0.8 was that one could implement a complex protocol keeping separated the Io/Codec part of the protocol in one hand and the management of the Protocol-level objects on the other hand. What I could do with this is to easily define Mock implementations of the Protocol level management by just connecting to a VMPipe instead of a real socket. That way only Protocol level filters and handlers will be used on the ProtocolHandlers and not any of the Io/Codec level stuff. =20 In 0.9 since there is no distinction between any of them, is there a good pattern that one can use to achieve the same behaviour?=20 =20 Any good ideas appreciated. =20 Jose Alberto =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5E915.29658AA4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

With the new APIs in 0.9 there are no differences = between Io and Protocol level filters and such.

One thing I found very useful in 0.8 was that one = could implement a complex protocol keeping separated the Io/Codec part of the protocol in one hand and the management of the Protocol-level objects on = the other hand. What I could do with this is to easily define Mock = implementations of the Protocol level management by just connecting to a VMPipe instead = of a real socket. That way only Protocol level filters and handlers will be = used on the ProtocolHandlers and not any of the Io/Codec level = stuff.

In 0.9 since there is no distinction between any of = them, is there a good pattern that one can use to achieve the same behaviour? =

Any good ideas = appreciated.

Jose Alberto

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5E915.29658AA4--