In order to make this work and still be typesafe we either have to:On Oct 10, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:Ok I had some sleep and low and behold the ideas came to me :). I think I have a clear picture of
what we need to do to handle this properly. Let me describe that here then try to figure out how
that fits with what you have done and described below.
First if Emmanuel is right about NTP needing both protocol end points on the same port for both
transport protocols (UDP/TCP) then there is no need to have twice the configuration. Then
something like these combinations would suffice:
Configures both UDP and TCP transports on port 123.
Configures only TCP on port 123.
Configures only UDP on port 123.
Note that I did not pass in <#apacheDS/> which is not needed since this service will depend on the
core directory service plus the MINA components. Depending on which IoAcceptor is set the respective
transport protocol is used. If both are set then both transports are to be used.
So instead of having the NtpServer class just deal with setting up a single endpoint for one transport
protocol it will handle all endpoints for all transport protocols and no more configuration bean. The
component is wired directly but how it's wired determines what is enabled.
- create different classes for the tcp and udp IoAcceptor instances so you can't hook up the wrong one
or- wrap the IoAcceptor get the appropriate BaseIoAcceptorConfig from the wrapper. This would work if all uses of udp use the same acceptor config and all uses of tcp use the same tcp config. I'm not qualified to guess if this is the case now and in the forseeable future. In this case the XXXServer class (currently typically XXXConfiguration) could get a list of IoAcceptorwrapper objects instead of just one or two.Another aspect I don't know about here is exactly how MINA distributes threads between udp and tcp. My guess is that MINA has a thread pool that it uses for all incoming requests, whether udp or tcp.
If we want to preserve a single thread pool for all requests this may take some hoop-jumping-through with separate configuration of the tcp and udp IoAcceptors. On the other hand I've heard rumors that you can get spring to call a method and use the result as the reference value, so we might be able to do something with that and preserve a single MinaBean.Anyway if someone wants to explain the desired model here or point me to docs that would be great.
Is this any different from renaming ServiceConfiguration to AbstractService? I tried to avoid extra renamings since I thought it would make the actual changes into components harder to see.If the other protocols obey the same requirements where both transport endpoints are needed on the
same port then we can follow this same pattern. We just have to watch for the special cases if they
Now what impact does this have on OSGi and on configuration in DIT for the future. I don't know that
yet and it's something to think about.
Ok now inline for discussing your changes ...On 10/10/07, David Jencks <email@example.com > wrote:In rev 583375 I moved all the non-ldap protocol servers into independent components and provided 2 NTP implementations as a basis for further discussion.
Ok so you broke it out to have a UdpNtpServer and a TcpNtpServer which are in them selves what you
deem one implementation approach I guess right?
Then there is this NtpConfiguration which starts both together as a configuration bean + manager for the
other two services?NtpConfiguration illustrates the approach of a single component to configure both udp and tcp versions of the same protocol. This could trivially be enhanced with flags to enable/disable the tcp or udp choices. If we decide on this approach I would rename the class NtpServer.server.xml configuration of this looks like:<ntpConfiguration ipPort="80123"><apacheDs>#apacheDS</apacheDs></ntpConfiguration>Ok then this would be close to what I was pointing out above but it uses this ApacheDS reference
instead of feeding in the MINA components. I would like to see these configuration objects go away
all together without even the ServiceConfiguration base class. Instead an AbstractServer object can
be defined and used for server implementations like NtpServer with the base configuration details in
This way we don't have a configuration bean + additional code to start and stop subordinate services.
So let me list it out:
AbstractServer (or AbstractService )
Replaces ServiceConfiguration as base class for protocol servers. This is the common
denominator for all servers running in ApacheDS. It may need some properties moved
into some subtypes since the present ServiceConfiguration has more than the common