On Feb 13, 2008 10:07 AM, 이희승 (Trustin Lee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008-02-12 (화), 23:57 -0700, Mike Heath 쓰시길: > > 이희승 (Trustin Lee) wrote: > > > 2008-02-12 (화), 11:16 -0700, Mike Heath 쓰시길: > > >> Eero Nevalainen wrote: > > >>> Btw, what was the status of DNS resolution in MINA? I remember that > at > > >>> some point DNS resolving used the blocking java API calls. I could > > >>> imagine that an asynchronous HTTP-client would have to perform a lot > of > > >>> DNS queries(or not, depending on use). Could this become a pithole? > > >> That's a very good point, Eero. I think blocking DNS lookups could > > >> definitely be a very big pit hole. Did anything ever come from all > the > > >> asynchronous DNS lookup discussions? > > >> > > >> And that's not the only DNS issue. If a DNS returns multiple A > records > > >> for a given host name, most browsers will try to connect to the IP > > >> address from the first A record. If that fails, they'll try the next > IP > > >> address and so on until the connection succeeds or all of the A > records > > >> have been exhausted. We should support this same behavior in > AsyncWeb. > > > > > > I thought it's the operating system who decides which A record to use > > > and it's often random round-robin style. Is there any related > > > documentation or is it from your experiment? Just curious. > > > > The way Mozilla browsers handle DNS Round Robin is explained here > > http://www.mozilla.org/docs/netlib/dns.html under the "Round Robin > > Support" section. > > > > > It would be nice to have a built in DNS lookup mechanism in MINA as we > > > discussed in our previous discussion, but once the domain name is > > > resolved, it will be cached by the operation system, so it shouldn't > be > > > a big problem in most cases. It will of course be a problem if > someone > > > is writing a web robot or something similar. > > > > I do agree that in most cases it won't be a problem. > > Thanks for the link to the documentation. > > So, I guess we need some pluggability in domain name resolution. For > now, we are using InetSocketAddress and as long as we depend on it, we > don't have any control over how domain name is resolved in MINA. This > mean that we need to provide our own endpoint representation classes. > It will probably cause the major API change, but I think it worth to do > this. How does that sound? Will we need to implement this in 2.0 or... > in 3.0? :) > I would say 2.0-M2 Maarten > > -- > what we call human nature is actually human habit > -- > http://gleamynode.net/ >
