directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposed protocol-dns changes
Date Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:43:45 GMT
Richard,

Richard Wallace wrote:
> Enrique Rodriguez wrote:

...

>>> 6) Moved all the (get|put)Unsigned(Byte|Short|Int) methods into a
>>> utility class called ByteBufferUtil.
>> Regarding #6, in the early days of MINA we found we had a need for
>> unsigned values in various protocols so we put them directly on MINA's
>> ByteBuffer:
>>
>> http://mina.apache.org/report/trunk/apidocs/org/apache/mina/common/ByteBuffer.html
>>
>>
>> So, this may be a reason to use MINA ByteBuffer's.  
> Ah.  I didn't know those methods were on the MINA ByteBuffers.  AFAIK
> they weren't being used by the protocol-dns before.  A proposal came up
> a while ago on the MINA list to create a separate jar that just had the
> ByteBuffer in it.  I wouldn't mind seeing the shared code using
> something like that.
>> I also don't see
>> any reason to reduce our dependency on MINA.  Especially with more
>> complicated protocols, there is a need to use features of the
>> framework to reduce complexity.  If the framework is truly pluggable,
>> then it isn't a framework, it's a component.
>>
> My only issue is with being too tightly coupled to any framework.  I
> love MINA.  It's the reason I'm interested in working on different
> networking protocol implementations.  It's just really slick.  But, I've
> learned not to put too many eggs in one basket. 

I think the use of MINA will be inevitable.  Having dependencies is not 
such a bad thing.  It's just something that needs to be managed.

Alex

Mime
View raw message