mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel LŽcharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [MINA 3.0] Initial thoughts on FilterChain
Date Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:42:56 GMT
Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>
> On Dec 3, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Ashish wrote:
>
>>>>> What about the assertion that new filters only get created to 
>>>>> simulate a
>>>>> state machine?
>>>>
>>>> Finally, managed to check-in some of the initial thoughts.
>>>> The transition handler or the computeNext function is still to be 
>>>> out in.
>>>
>>> Sorry. Not sure how that answers my question other than to detail what
>>> you've done and what you're about to do.
>>>
>>
>> OOPS! :-(  I think I am getting old
>>
>> After a discussion we thought that we shall make it possible for
>> user's to choose the way we want Filter transitions
>> That's what the transition handler is :-) Default implementation shall
>> be of next Filter in the chain.
>> User's can plugin their implementations for transition say like a
>> State Machine implementation.
>>
>> Since I couldn't take it to logical conclusion, still working on it :)
>> Also my experience with State machines is limited, so will need a
>> helping hand here (or may be some references :-) )
>
> The key thing about state machines is that the states and the 
> transitions are known and fixed ahead of time.  If this our state of 
> affairs, and I think that it is, then things are much more simple and 
> mentally tractable, i.e. there's no ad hoc filter creation during 
> protocol processing and much of the threading issues in past entries 
> on this thread disappear.
Generally speaking, when implementing a protocol, states and transitions 
are very well known and static, so the SM approach seems adequate.


Mime
View raw message