directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Trustin Lee" <>
Subject Re: [mina] MINA compared to QuickServer
Date Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:43:54 GMT
Hi Michael,

On 2/24/06, Michael Link <> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm currently evaluating MINA for usage in a .NET-Java-Communication
> scenario. It looks very promising, I just wondered how MINA compares to
> QuickServer ( What do you think is the
> essential difference between those two products ?

Thank for the information about another network application framework.  I
found a few differences:

* QuickServer supports blocking mode.  (MINA supports only non-blocking
mode, but you can make your operation block at your will.)
* QuickServer provides GUI-based admin.  (MINA doesn't have one yet, but
will have full JMX support soon, which is a standard.)
* QuickServer uses java.util.logging.  (MINA uses SLF4J, which is a safe
replacement of commons-logging.)
* QuickServer uses its own XML settings.  (MINA provides Spring framework
integration instead.)
* QuickServer can specify maximum number of clients allowed.  (MINA can do
this using a filter, but not implemented by default.  Of course, this will
be implemented as an overload prevention filter.)
* QuickServer team has one crew.  (MINA has three crews.)
* QuickServer project started in 2003.  (MINA started in 2005.)
* QuickServer has a difference event handler interface from MINA.  (You'll
have to compare it by yourself.  IMHO, MINA has one simple enough handler
which covers all QuickServer provides.)
* QuickServer doesn't support UDP at all.  (MINA does)
* QuickServer doesn't support client-side API at all.  (MINA does)
* QuickServer integrated authentication and text protocol in its core.
(MINA didn't and they are considered as a cross-cutting concern that a
filter should take care of.  IMHO, MINA is more extensible here.)

I forward this message to the author of QuickServer so he can correct me if
I made any mistakes here.

what we call human nature is actually human habit
PGP key fingerprints:
* E167 E6AF E73A CBCE EE41  4A29 544D DE48 FE95 4E7E
* B693 628E 6047 4F8F CFA4  455E 1C62 A7DC 0255 ECA6

View raw message