You can still implement your own ExecutorFilter with MINA 1.x. It sould be pretty easy. Another option is to use byte code manipulation tool such as retrotranslator.
2008-03-11 (화), 15:04 -0400, Matt Mehalso 쓰시길: > I see now that this is the expected behavior in Mina 1.x. We can't use Mina > 2.0/UnorderedExecutorFilter as we cannot use Java 1.5 in our environment. > Has anyone published a custom version of an unordered ExecutorFilter for > Java 1.4? Otherwise I guess we'll just write our own. > > Thanks, > > Matt > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Matt Mehalso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > All - > > > > We are having some strange behavior with our MINA 1.0.9-based server > > during load test. I may be misinterpreting the purpose of an executor in > > the filter chain - please let me know if I have an incorrect understanding > > of its usage. > > > > Our server is a pretty simple asynchronous request/response server where > > multiple requests may come in all at once and be answered in any order. > > > > We have an Executor filter set up at the end of our filter chain to > > process requests concurrently. However, when under load, our server is > > processing all requests in order, in the same thread. For example, please > > see the log below: > > > > [SocketAcceptorIoProcessor-0.0] INFO - [/127.0.0.1:2824] RECEIVED: > > n0002..<omitted for readability> > > [SocketAcceptorIoProcessor-0.0] INFO - [/127.0.0.1:2824] RECEIVED: > > n0003..<omitted> > > [SocketAcceptorIoProcessor-0.0] INFO - [/127.0.0.1:2824] RECEIVED: > > n0004..<omitted> > > [SocketAcceptorIoProcessor-0.0] INFO - [/127.0.0.1:2824] RECEIVED: > > n0005..<omitted> > > > > [pool-4-thread-1] INFO - [/127.0.0.1:2824] WRITE: 0001E24 > > ...<SENT's omitted for readability> > > [pool-4-thread-1] INFO - [/127.0.0.1:2824] WRITE: 000232nA > > [pool-4-thread-1] INFO - [/127.0.0.1:2824] WRITE: 000332nA > > [pool-4-thread-1] INFO - [/127.0.0.1:2824] WRITE: 000432nA > > [pool-4-thread-1] INFO - [/127.0.0.1:2824] WRITE: 000532nA > > > > It was my understanding that simultaneous requests like this would spawn > > five different threads (currently all executed in order, in > > pool-4-thread-1). Am I wrong? If so, is there a way to have these processed > > concurrently, as we are facing some performance issues? > > > > Our filter chain is set up as follows: > > > > filterChainBuilder = acceptorConfig.getFilterChain(); > > filterChainBuilder.addLast("codec", new ProtocolCodecFilter(new > > TcCodecFactory())); > > filterChainBuilder.addLast("logger", new LoggingFilter()); > > filterChainBuilder.addLast("threadPool", new ExecutorFilter( > > Executors.newCachedThreadPool())); > > > > Thanks in advance! I greatly appreciate everyone's help. > > > > -Matt > > > > -- Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part