On Jun 16, 2011, at 1:23 PM, Julien Vermillard wrote: > Hi, > Answer inline > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: >> >> Very cool! I have a few questions. >> >> Why have a class for WriteQueue and not simply use Queue<WriteRequest>? > > Was my first thought actually WriteQueue is an empty extends of > Queue<WriteRequest> > I think we can change it to Queue because I see no needs of custome > fields/method there. > >> Why have an interface WriteRequest and not simply use Object? >> > It's for keeping the reference to the future and complete it once the > message is sent.
Not sure that a WriteRequest is required for that. Couldn't you store the future in a map keyed off the object? >> Why do we have IoSessionFuture, CloseFuture, ConnectFuture and WriteFuture >> and not simply use Future<>? >> > I didn't took a look at Future for now, but yes I think killing > IoFuture and trying to stick to java 5.0 Future is the idea. You should take a look at my IoFuture. I've extended it to allow for clients to register listeners. Quite handy. >> A long time ago I also took a stab a Mina 3 API. Mine was driven by an >> async HTTP implementation. It would be neat if we could merge the two sets >> of ideas; not sure how much time I can devote to this in the short term >> though. :) > > Same here, it's going slow but continuously anyway keep dropping ideas ! Very cool. I'll still keep updating my copy in the sandbox to incorporate your stuff as well. It will serve as a nice comparison between what you have on your branch and mine. Regards, Alan
