Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of akarasulu@gmail.com designates
 64.233.166.178 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=OXCKHYeeDJkc/0kqjYdZyP/Zl1E1MfZmnuKhckhl0fftTGycEYagERiUV9CAFvzdty+QdEyx+36R24BuChED63wrS91D8OO6JAu4vd4y5mmSwzk5hHyK1gf0TB0uMflYvwf5sS0+/LhIhjm4cP/lnNjEBOoL0fUOfuaUFS5895s=
Message-ID: <a32f6b020706230430n7d0288dbyc298d76ee26aede2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:30:03 +0200
From: "Alex Karasulu" <akarasulu@apache.org>
Sender: akarasulu@gmail.com
To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Moving from IoHandlerChain to something easier to debug
In-Reply-To: <467B07ED.6080702@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_107507_21904949.1182598203828"
References: <d45b08f00706210655l1c0309f8t634c512406c57956@mail.gmail.com>
	 <568753d90706211116v28a9d550mfd6aaa6cf51ccb14@mail.gmail.com>
	 <467B07ED.6080702@apache.org>

------=_Part_107507_21904949.1182598203828
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 6/22/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Enrique Rodriguez a =E9crit :


SNIP ..

> On 6/21/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It would help MINA developers to know
> > whether to use the IoHandlerChain or not.
>
> If you are going to use a Chain patter, then I guess that the important
> point is to think about the problem it solves. For instance, monitoring
> by inserting loggers could be a good usage. But the main advantage of
> chain parttern is its versatility : you can change the order of
> handlers, or simply add or remove handlers on demand. If you never do
> that, then using a chain pattern is questionable (IMHO).


With MINA filters I think we can still achieve the level of logging that
you're talking
about but perhaps not at the same resolution so I think the dynamism we gai=
n
from the chain pattern is somewhat redundant.  I don't think it's necessary
here
since the protocol is relatively static.  Actually the chain pattern might
benefit
LDAP more since it can introduce new mechanisms for things like SASL,
Controls,
and extended operations  but there might be more manageable patterns for
this.

Alex

------=_Part_107507_21904949.1182598203828
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<br><br><div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 6/22/07, <b class=3D"gmail_send=
ername">Emmanuel Lecharny</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:elecharny@apache.org">e=
lecharny@apache.org</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8=
ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Enrique Rodriguez a =E9crit :</blockquote><div><br>SNIP .. <br></div><br><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 20=
4, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">&gt; On 6/21/07, Em=
manuel Lecharny &lt;
<a href=3D"mailto:elecharny@gmail.com">elecharny@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<b=
r>&gt; It would help MINA developers to know<br>&gt; whether to use the IoH=
andlerChain or not.<br><br>If you are going to use a Chain patter, then I g=
uess that the important
<br>point is to think about the problem it solves. For instance, monitoring=
<br>by inserting loggers could be a good usage. But the main advantage of<b=
r>chain parttern is its versatility : you can change the order of<br>handle=
rs, or simply add or remove handlers on demand. If you never do
<br>that, then using a chain pattern is questionable (IMHO).</blockquote><d=
iv><br>With MINA filters I think we can still achieve the level of logging =
that you&#39;re talking<br>about but perhaps not at the same resolution so =
I think the dynamism we gain
<br>from the chain pattern is somewhat redundant.&nbsp; I don&#39;t think i=
t&#39;s necessary here<br>since the protocol is relatively static.&nbsp; Ac=
tually the chain pattern might benefit<br>LDAP more since it can introduce =
new mechanisms for things like SASL, Controls,
<br>and extended operations&nbsp; but there might be more manageable patter=
ns for this.<br></div><br>Alex<br></div><br>

------=_Part_107507_21904949.1182598203828--