I just wanted to reiterate that I didn't mean to be discouraging to the MINA devs at all. If I hadn't come across the Grizzly tidbit, I was planning on posting a "thank you" for writing such a kick-ass framework that's saving me a ton of time, money, and stress.
Asyncweb rocks too, by the way. I'm now grabbing your handy state-machine code for my SIP server, since SIP and HTTP message parsing is almost identical. I'll hopefully get around to adapting it to a generic HTTP-style protocol parsing framework, but no promises yet! If anyone else has leaned towards writing a state machine for their protocol parsing, I'd recommend checking out the AsyncWeb code. All the Best, -Adam On 5/25/07, Ersin Er <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, MINA started a new trend in NIO based frameworks. It's elegant and I am sure it can be further optimized for performance. What I care now is how easily I can integrate it into my application and MINA with new enhancements seems to be quite cool in this job. And it's Apache! On 5/24/07, Adam Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The slides were just posted from this Java One session claiming Grizzly > blows MINA away performance-wise, and I'm just curious as to people's views > on it. They present some interesting ideas about optimizing selector > threading and ByteBuffer use. > > http://developers.sun.com/learning/javaoneonline/j1sessn.jsp?sessn=TS-2992&yr=2007&track=5 > > Maybe someone could comment on the performance improvements in MINA 2.0 ? It > might also be useful to look at Grizzlies techniques to see if MINA could > incorporate them. I know at least Scott Oaks from Grizzly is a solid > performance guy, so their numbers are likely correct. > > Quick note: I'm not trying to spark a Grizzly/MINA battle by any means. I > just started using MINA after having implemented several generic NIO > frameworks myself, and I absolutely love MINA's approach. It allowed me to > code a STUN server in 2 days, and I'm porting my SIP server now. > > Thanks, > > Adam > -- Ersin
