Maarten, I added in steps 2 and 3. Take a look and let me know what you think of this so far.
Thanks Mark On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > 2008/4/10 Mark Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Sorry for the mis-typing of your name.... > > no worries. > > > > > > > > The more I think about this, the more I think that each step should be a > > stand-alone program. Step 2 should include all the code from step 1 and > > the > > code that was introduced in step 2. For instance, in step 1 you might > > have > > : > > > > IoAcceptor acceptor = new NioSocketAcceptor(); > > acceptor.setHandler( new MyHandler() ); > > acceptor.bind( new InetSocketAddress(PORT)); > > > > Then when you introduce step 2, you will add in an ExecutorFilter to all > > the > > code above. > > > That's what I meant: in step2 you have another main, that builds the > IoFilter chain all by itself. > So that would be copy-paste from step1 with an ExecutorFilter added. > But I see no point, in copying for example the custom encoder/decoder from > step1 to step2 ? > > When entire classes from step-n are reused in step-(n+1), there is IMO no > reason to copy them. > > > > > Then when you introduce step 3, you will add JMX code to the code that > > includes steps 1 and 2. So by the time you reach the end, the code in > > step > > 1 (above) will contain much more code and not be so simple and > > understandable and the person reading the tutorial might get confused. > > > I agree. > After adding step2, the code in step1 shouldn't have changed. > That's the reason I called it step1 :-) > > regards, > Maarten > > > > > > --Mark > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Maarten Bosteels < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello Mark, > > > > > > Great to hear you will have some time to work on the examples. > > > > > > 2008/4/9 Mark Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > I hit the send button much too quickly. Maartin, what is your plan > > for > > > > how > > > > the codebase will look? I see that in the examples subproject there > > is > > > a > > > > package called "imagine.step1". For step 2, will you take a copy of > > all > > > > the > > > > code from step 1 and add more functionality (like ExecutorFilter)? > > > > > > > > > I think most of the code from step1 can be reused by step2 etc, so > there > > > would be no need to copy code. > > > IMO, the imagine.step2 package should only contain the code that needs > > to > > > be > > > added or changed compared to step1. Probably only the main method > where > > > the > > > filterChain is built. > > > > > > But feel free to disagree :-) > > > > > > regards, > > > Maarten (not Maartin) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you see all this coming together? > > > > > > > > --Mark > > > > > > > > 2008/4/9 Mark Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > I have some free time coming up. I will give it a shot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Maarten Bosteels < > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:08 PM, "이희승 (Trustin Lee) < > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's good time for someone to write a MINA curriculum > > and > > > > > > revamp > > > > > > > all examples to follow the curriculum. Maarten once started > an > > > > > > > 'imagine' example but he ended up with stage1. He might have > > > > > > something > > > > > > > in his mind about setting up the MINA curriculum. ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > Yes, my plan was to build upon the ImageServer and add extra > > > > > > functionality > > > > > > step-by-step > > > > > > * step1: what is now in the protocol-codec tutorial (and in svn) > > > > > > * step2 : add an ExecutorFilter > > > > > > * step3 : add some JMX stuff > > > > > > * step4 : show how to cleanly shut down the server > > > > > > * step5 : add a throttle filter > > > > > > ... > > > > > > (the order doesn't really matter) > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, until now I didn't get further than step1 ... > > > > > > I still have the intention though, just can't promise when I > will > > > find > > > > > > that > > > > > > scarce resource called time. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd welcome anyone who wants to work on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maarten > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark Webb wrote: > > > > > > > > that is the funniest description of one's software I ever > > heard. > > > > > > > bravo... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Niklas Gustavsson < > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2008/4/9 Mark Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > >>> sounds like that is the direction we want to go. My only > > > > concern > > > > > > is > > > > > > > >> that we > > > > > > > >>> start getting apps in the examples directory that > overlap. > > > > There > > > > > > is > > > > > > > >>> currently a chat program in examples, but maybe your's is > > > more > > > > > > > >> feature-rich > > > > > > > >>> or more robust. One think I do like about the current > chat > > > > > > example > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > > >>> it is the only example that uses Spring. > > > > > > > >> No it's certainly not more feature rich, it's probably the > > > > > > stupidest > > > > > > > >> chat server ever built. The purpose was to make it as > simple > > as > > > > > > > >> possible to be able to communicate it during a talk. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> /niklas > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > what we call human nature is actually human habit > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > http://gleamynode.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no > > one > > > > else > > > > > can see. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no > one > > > else > > > > can see. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -------------------------------- > > Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one > else > > can see. > > > -- -------------------------------- Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
