I have used MESSAGE_SENT, not sure I agree that it should disappear. What about situations where MINA is used in a client library? Won't much of your list be reversed?
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > as I'm looking deeply into the impact on the code of the new chain > proposals, I'm looking at the events we are handling. > > In the following list, I have sorted all the events in two categories : > incoming and outgoing events. Incoming events are those received from the > clients, outgoing events are those emitted by the server. > > Here is the list of those events : > > SESSION_CREATED : An incoming event. > SESSION_OPENED : Seems to me to be a duplication of the previous event. An > incoming event. > SESSION_CLOSED : An incoming event. > MESSAGE_RECEIVED : Clearly an incoming event. > MESSAGE_SENT : IMHO, useless. Must disappear. > SESSION_IDLE : Questionable. But if we keep it, should be considered as an > incoming event. > EXCEPTION_CAUGHT : Interesting ... IMO, an incoming event too. Even if > generated during a write operation (or while processing a Write event), it's > applied to the session.incomingChain so that all the filters can handle it. > The question is : should we also propagate this event through the > outgoingChain ? > WRITE : Outgoing event. > CLOSE : Not sure what this event is used for. We already have a > SESSION_CLOSED, I'm wondering if it's not a duplication. > SET_TRAFFIC_MASK : Seems to be used nowhere. It appears to have been created > to handle custom events. I suggest that we ignore this event, unless someone > has a clear vision on how to use it and why. > > Did I forgot anything important? > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > directory.apache.org > > >
