You're right, in same time mina-http doesn't have HttpEntity equivalent. We could start without them and add them in second step
2013/1/3 Julien Vermillard <[email protected]>: > 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 >> >> >>
