I think we agree here, I wouldn't touch the NIO part, but the interface for the message are nice. The only issue is with the HttpEntity stuff, I like the way contents are streamed in small chunk in the mina-http codec. I'm not sure it's feasable without forking the http-core code.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Arnaud bourree <[email protected]>wrote: > My idea was to re-used http-core pojo classes like BasicHttpStatus, > BasicHttpResponse, ... in mina-http codec. > In other words don't re-defined Http pojo classes, just implement mina > encoder/decoder > IMO, http-core-nio looks more complex than existing mina-http and > doesn't have clear split between pojo classes and parser we expect > > 2013/1/2 Julien Vermillard <[email protected]>: > > Taking a look now. Looks like the code is not really commented :( > > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Ashish <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> hc has nio based implementation as well > >> > http://hc.apache.org/httpcomponents-core-ga/httpcore-nio/xref/index.html > >> See nio.codecs package > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Julien Vermillard < > [email protected] > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > Definitively should take a look. > >> > The only tricky issue is streaming large content, because MINA have an > >> > event based paradigm where H.C. have probably a stream based approach. > >> > > >> > Julien > >> > Le 1 janv. 2013 16:33, "Arnaud bourree" <[email protected]> a > >> > écrit : > >> > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > Happy new year 2013. > >> > > > >> > > I'm strongly interested in HTTP codec: I used for one project I did > >> > > for my company. > >> > > Here there are my point of view: > >> > > - share codec between MINA 2 and 3: I initially take MINA 3 as base > to > >> > > implement on MINA 2 and keep classes and package structure. BTW > share > >> > > should be easy to do, but when I did job, I made some change due to > >> > > JDK version 5 for MINA 2 and 6 for MINA 3 > >> > > - codec independent from MINA: I take a look on the web to find HTTP > >> > > API object to convert BB to, I find that Apache HTTP Client > >> > > (http-core) feet what we need. > >> > > What do you think to used http-core as API for Pojo object and write > >> > > HTTP codec to encode/decode BB from/to http-core objects and on top > a > >> > > HTTP filter for MINA framework? > >> > > > >> > > Regrards, > >> > > > >> > > Arnaud. > >> > > > >> > > 2013/1/1 Julien Vermillard <[email protected]>: > >> > > > Hi, > >> > > > I wanted to sleep, by my son wasn't agreeing :) I will probably > crash > >> > > later. > >> > > > > >> > > > Yeah we could experiment with the HTTP codec, it's in pretty bad > >> state > >> > > for > >> > > > now. > >> > > > It would be nice to be able to share the codec code between MINA 2 > >> and > >> > 3. > >> > > > Julien > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny < > >> > [email protected] > >> > > >wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> we should think of a codec as an independant module : it should > be > >> > > >> available for any java code that just needs suh a codec for its > own > >> > > >> purpose. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> such a need has already been expressed for http. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> imo, the current impl is over-ingeniered. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Btw, it seems that we are up and running at 9am on jan. first... > >> crazy > >> > > open > >> > > >> source developpers... > >> > > >> > >> > > >> happy new year ! > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Le 1 janv. 2013 09:26, "Julien Vermillard" < > [email protected]> > >> a > >> > > >> écrit : > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > It's sure 10 year after SEDA is quite smelly :-) > >> > > >> > In my mind the codec code should be used by a filter for > >> > transforming > >> > > the > >> > > >> > bytes into pojos (like today) but really not dependent of MINA. > >> > > >> > IMHO demux handler is a piece of s..t, you should use a visitor > >> > > pattern. > >> > > >> > Much more testable. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I like the loop until it's decoded idea, it very simple to > >> > understand. > >> > > >> > Le 31 déc. 2012 18:13, "Emmanuel Lécharny" < > [email protected]> > >> a > >> > > >> écrit > >> > > >> : > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Le 12/31/12 7:55 AM, Julien Vermillard a écrit : > >> > > >> > > > Hi, > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > Since few year, I stopped to use the MINA > ProtocolCodecFilter > >> > and > >> > > >> > > > associated stuff (CumulativeCodec..). for implementing my > own > >> > > codec > >> > > >> > > > independent of MINA. > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > it's just a service consuming ByteBuffer and pushing > decoded > >> > POJO > >> > > in > >> > > >> a > >> > > >> > > > callback. The point is to be independent of MINA for > example, > >> > > parse & > >> > > >> > > save > >> > > >> > > > files using the codec, or simply implement an HTTP version > of > >> > the > >> > > >> > > transport > >> > > >> > > > using old style servlet. > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > Basically a decoder looks like : > >> > https://gist.github.com/4417934 > >> > > >> > > > One is instantiated by session. > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > I'm quite happy with that and I think we should not port > the > >> old > >> > > >> > > > ProtocolCodeFilter to MINA 3.0 and replace it with a > >> independent > >> > > MINA > >> > > >> > > async > >> > > >> > > > decoder framework (consuming BB, accumulating if needed and > >> > > producing > >> > > >> > > pojo). > >> > > >> > > It sounds a reasonnable proposal. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > If we think about it, decoding is not part of a filter chain > : > >> it > >> > > >> > > introduces a change of data type being passed from one > filter to > >> > the > >> > > >> > > other, and if we have to cumulate data, we will just stop > >> > processing > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> > > incomming data in the middle of the chain, the handler being > >> > > unaware of > >> > > >> > > this fact. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > Julien's proposal seems way better : the Handler would have a > >> > common > >> > > >> > > interface for encoding and decoding, used as a service when a > >> > > >> > > MessageReceived or a Write events are to be processed. This > way, > >> > the > >> > > >> > > handler is fully in charge of all the aspects of the data > >> > > processing, > >> > > >> > > including the accumulation of data. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > It won't either eliminate the existence of pre-written codec, > >> like > >> > > the > >> > > >> > > HttpCodec, or the Textline codec. We can even think about a > >> chain > >> > of > >> > > >> > > codecs : one codec depends on the result of the previous > codec. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > As far as I can tell, changing MINA this way will not impact > >> > > ApacheDS, > >> > > >> > > even if we are using a DemuxIoHandler (the handler called > >> depends > >> > on > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> > > received message) : I don't see such a handler as a > >> simplification > >> > > over > >> > > >> > > a simple switch... > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > Keep in mind that the exisiting MINA logic depends on an idea > >> > which > >> > > is > >> > > >> > > 10 years old : SEDA, and has not proven any advantage against > >> > > simpler > >> > > >> > > implementations. It's also important to notice that SEDA > implies > >> > > that > >> > > >> > > each process part communicates with the next process (read : > >> > > filter) by > >> > > >> > > the use of queues. This is highly costly and memory > consuming. > >> I'm > >> > > not > >> > > >> > > sure that SEDA has anything to do with MINA implementation > >> > anwyay... > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > On more thing : the current codec supposes that we pass a > >> callback > >> > > >> which > >> > > >> > > is called as soon as something has been decoded. This make > the > >> > code > >> > > >> > > extremely complicated to debug. I'd rather have a system > where > >> we > >> > > can > >> > > >> > > loop on the decoder, until it produces nothing. In other > words, > >> > > instead > >> > > >> > > of having something like : > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > void myCallback( IoSession session, Object message ) { > >> > > >> > > // Do something > >> > > >> > > } > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > void decode( IoSession session, ByteBuffer buffer, callback > ) { > >> > > >> > > // Decode and call the callback > >> > > >> > > } > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > void messageReceived( IoSession session, ByteBuffer buffer ) > { > >> > > >> > > decode( session, myCalback ); > >> > > >> > > ... > >> > > >> > > } > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > I would prefer something like : > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > Object decode( IoSession session, ByteBuffer buffer ) { > >> > > >> > > // Decode > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > return decoded; > >> > > >> > > } > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > void messageReceived( IoSession session, ByteBuffer buffer ) > { > >> > > >> > > while ( ( Object decoded = decode( session ) ) != null ) > { > >> > > >> > > // Do something > >> > > >> > > } > >> > > >> > > } > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > Julien > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > -- > >> > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > >> > > Cordialement, > >> > > >> > > Emmanuel Lécharny > >> > > >> > > www.iktek.com > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> thanks > >> ashish > >> > >> Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog > >> My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal > >> >
