Re : ConnectFuture confusion
There are months i'm thinking the same without daring to say so ... The problem is that 1.x branches have been abandonned long time ago and much people are indeed waiting for the release of this 2.0 how bad would it be to release it for the early adopters with a 'use it at your own risk' warning and invite new comers to wait for a 3.0 preview ? would it be acceptable for the community to say that we won't support it extensively as our efforts will be concentrated on 3.0 ? Maybe it's the right time to shake the anthill or maybe not ... my 2 cents Cordialement, Regards, -Edouard De Oliveira- - Message d'origine De : Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.com À : dev@mina.apache.org Envoyé le : Lun 1 Mars 2010, 18 h 45 min 02 s Objet : Re: ConnectFuture confusion On 3/1/10 6:30 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: On Mar 1, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: On 3/1/10 6:10 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: On 3/1/10 4:38 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Ashish wrote: Thoughts ? Unless it breaks the system, i would say lets not loose our sleep over this. While I share the same opinion about the IoFuture hierarchy as you I have the same sentiments as Ashish. I'm afraid that we might have to fix the issue in 2.0 Trust me, i'm not pleased with this ! Fixing a bug is one thing. Reorganizing a code base a few days after an attempted vote on its initial release is another. I know :/ This is why I created a branch, in a desesperate attempt to get rid of all those futures, instead of doing that in trunk. Now, it was the end of a long and painful week, chasing many bugs in many places, and I was turning in circle. I *wish* we can fix the bug, without having to rewrite this part. Another alternative is to totally abandon 2.x. It was never officially released. Just leave it as it is and work on the new 2.x I'm also considering this option... -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.nextury.com
Re: [sshd] Output for errOut goes to stdOut
I resolved the issue in JIRA. Thanks Guillaume for looking into this. At least, the behavior is now documented. Bernd On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:20, Bernd Fondermann bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com wrote: Opened SSHD-76 with more info. Thanks, Bernd On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 18:05, Guillaume Nodet gno...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not aware of any problem like that. Are you connecting to a native ssh server or the one from SSHD ? Also could you try to set the log level to DEBUG on the client side and see if you see a SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_FAILURE somehow ? Maybe you could set up a small test case I could try and debug ? On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 17:42, Bernd Fondermann bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, I'm connecting to a remote machine using org.apache.sshd.ClientSession.createChannel(shell); I'm setting channel.setOut(outputListener); channel.setErr(errorListener); to two distinct sinks. Now, when I invoke an unexisting command on the other machine directly, like this: pommes std.out 2err.out I'll find that - as expected - std.out is empty and err.out contains -bash: pommes: command not found while invoking this command (without output redirection) via sshd client, I'll get the same error message via out, none via err. With a debugger I could confirm that org.apache.sshd.client.channel.AbstractClientChannel.doWriteExtendedData() never get's called. What's it I'm doing wrong here? Thanks, Bernd -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
Re: Re : ConnectFuture confusion
I agree with Edouard, much people not even waited but used (!) mina 2.0 in production. Our servers are working on mina 2.0 during ~1.5 years - we use both connectors and acceptors. In fact, 2.0 is not so bad as it seems to be ;) We just have some bugs which should be fixed in 2.0. Otherwise people may think that mina will never be released ;-( Victor N Edouard De Oliveira wrote: There are months i'm thinking the same without daring to say so ... The problem is that 1.x branches have been abandonned long time ago and much people are indeed waiting for the release of this 2.0 how bad would it be to release it for the early adopters with a 'use it at your own risk' warning and invite new comers to wait for a 3.0 preview ? would it be acceptable for the community to say that we won't support it extensively as our efforts will be concentrated on 3.0 ? Maybe it's the right time to shake the anthill or maybe not ... my 2 cents Cordialement, Regards, -Edouard De Oliveira- - Message d'origine De : Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.com À : dev@mina.apache.org Envoyé le : Lun 1 Mars 2010, 18 h 45 min 02 s Objet : Re: ConnectFuture confusion On 3/1/10 6:30 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: On Mar 1, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: On 3/1/10 6:10 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: On 3/1/10 4:38 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Ashish wrote: Thoughts ? Unless it breaks the system, i would say lets not loose our sleep over this. While I share the same opinion about the IoFuture hierarchy as you I have the same sentiments as Ashish. I'm afraid that we might have to fix the issue in 2.0 Trust me, i'm not pleased with this ! Fixing a bug is one thing. Reorganizing a code base a few days after an attempted vote on its initial release is another. I know :/ This is why I created a branch, in a desesperate attempt to get rid of all those futures, instead of doing that in trunk. Now, it was the end of a long and painful week, chasing many bugs in many places, and I was turning in circle. I *wish* we can fix the bug, without having to rewrite this part. Another alternative is to totally abandon 2.x. It was never officially released. Just leave it as it is and work on the new 2.x I'm also considering this option...
Re: Re : ConnectFuture confusion
On 3/2/10 1:13 PM, Victor wrote: I agree with Edouard, much people not even waited but used (!) mina 2.0 in production. Our servers are working on mina 2.0 during ~1.5 years - we use both connectors and acceptors. In fact, 2.0 is not so bad as it seems to be ;) We just have some bugs which should be fixed in 2.0. Otherwise people may think that mina will never be released ;-( I'm using MINA 2.0 since 2.0-M1, I think. I have had hard time getting it working, but at the end of the day, 2.0.0-RC1 is pretty useable, if you don't dare using it in fancy ways. Most of the fixed bugs since then are for obscure features, but the most important fix is dealing with the selector freeze (a workaround for a JVM bug). We still have a couple of annoying issues with some tests on some OS, the problem is to undrstand if the tests are fragile or if MINA is the cause. Last friday, I was able to workaround a blockage I have with trunk simply by not waiting on a WriteFuture. You would say, wait, but this is a MAJOR issue, a future.wait() should never block forever !, but in fact, I get this problem _only_ because I call the write operation and the server will immediately close the connection before the writeFuture can be informed of this fact, so the client is waiting forever for an answer that never comes. I just let it be, assuming that the write will be sucessful, and moved on. Ok, MINA 2.0 is far from being perfect, there are some issues, but so far, it's usable. As soon as you know the limits, you can play within those limits with no fears... But as one of the developer, it's embarrassing ... -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.nextury.com
Re: Re : ConnectFuture confusion
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, MINA 2.0 is far from being perfect, there are some issues, but so far, it's usable. Agreed. I think not getting 2.0 out would be bikeshedding. I think we should release and support a 2.0 release, then put our main focus on 3.0 (rather than a 2.1) were we can break stuff. Not releasing 2.0 would be a disservice to our users who's been waiting for a final release. I think most users rather take a good-but-not-perfect 2.0 over waiting for 3.0 even further. My 2 öre as a developer mostly working on the subprojects :-) /niklas
Re: Re : ConnectFuture confusion
I totally agree with Niklas. Maarten On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Niklas Gustavsson nik...@protocol7.comwrote: On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, MINA 2.0 is far from being perfect, there are some issues, but so far, it's usable. Agreed. I think not getting 2.0 out would be bikeshedding. I think we should release and support a 2.0 release, then put our main focus on 3.0 (rather than a 2.1) were we can break stuff. Not releasing 2.0 would be a disservice to our users who's been waiting for a final release. I think most users rather take a good-but-not-perfect 2.0 over waiting for 3.0 even further. My 2 öre as a developer mostly working on the subprojects :-) /niklas
Re: Re : ConnectFuture confusion
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 14:00, Maarten Bosteels mbosteels@gmail.com wrote: I totally agree with Niklas. +1 from the downstream gallery. Bernd Maarten On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Niklas Gustavsson nik...@protocol7.comwrote: On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, MINA 2.0 is far from being perfect, there are some issues, but so far, it's usable. Agreed. I think not getting 2.0 out would be bikeshedding. I think we should release and support a 2.0 release, then put our main focus on 3.0 (rather than a 2.1) were we can break stuff. Not releasing 2.0 would be a disservice to our users who's been waiting for a final release. I think most users rather take a good-but-not-perfect 2.0 over waiting for 3.0 even further. My 2 öre as a developer mostly working on the subprojects :-) /niklas
