Jeff Genender wrote: > Yeah I am in agreement with Mike. An architectural overview...and an > example (heck use AHC vs HttpClient) and show how it scales. That will > get ooohs and ahhhs. > Jeff
+1, using a protocol that a lot of developers people are actually familiar with would help a lot. -Mike > Mike Heath wrote: >> One of the problems I've had when promoting MINA is that most Java >> developers don't understand the scalability implications of the >> thread-per-connection architecture. If I jump right in with how cool >> MINA is with its separation of concerns, futures, filters, event >> mechanism, simplifies packet fragmentation problems, etc., the audience >> either gets lost or replies with something like, "Using InputStreamsis >> just as flexible as filters but doesn't come with all the difficulties >> of having to build a state machine. MINA just makes things complicated!" >> >> However, if I start out showing how quickly I get an OOM exception when >> using a thread-per-connection architecture and then show how I can >> handle thousands of connections in MINA without consuming loads of >> memory, the audience is able to better understand the main problem that >> MINA solves. Showing how painful it is to use NIO directly is fairly >> simple at this point. The important part is making sure the audience >> understands the need for the functionality that NIO has to offer. >> >> Once the audience understands the problems MINA solves, I've found >> they're usually much more receptive to the coolness that MINA has to >> offer. >> >> Just my $0.02. >> >> -Mike >> >> 이희승 (Trustin Lee) wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was invited as a speaker of JavaOne 2008 and will speak about Apache >>> MINA there. Please feel free to contact me to give me some idea about >>> what you want to hear about MINA if you have any plan to attend this >>> year's JavaOne. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Trustin >