2008/11/11 Robert Greig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/11/11 Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Once we have M4 out of the door I would like to discuss the work I've >> done for both the broker and 0-8 client allowing them to select >> alternative IO layers. > > Having a pluggable IO layer would definitely be a great step forward. > It may give us an option in future to offer different I/O layers tuned > for, say, maximum throughput or predictable latency (these are just > examples, I'm not saying these are tradeoffs people would actually > need to make).
Yes - that was the general idea. I've not actually tried to implement any other I/O layers yet, but the interface is such that it should be possible. > >> For continuity stability it can use the >> existing MINA IO, but to address some of the issues being brought up >> here it can also be configured to use the Java 0-10 IO, or a similar >> NIO/selector based transport I wrote. While this won't answer all >> our issues it does offer one way of getting out from under some of the >> issues we've seen with MINA... and experimentally showed much improved >> performance for the Java Broker. > > With some major refactoring being done anyway, does keeping MINA make > sense? Or is it more a case of known problems versus unknown problems? My aim would be to get rid of MINA eventually... However there still needs to be some work to free the broker of dependence on Mina ByteBuffers etc (the I/O layer I've written just wraps the java.nio buffers in Mina buffers before passing them to the rest of the broker). I see that as a separate, but desirable, change. -- Rob
